SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

On the facts and all relevant background the parties and the solicitors intended a joint and several retainer: the retainer letters, the conduct of the parties (pattern of payments), affidavit evidence from the 2nd defendant and the representing solicitor, and commercial common sense supported the master's finding;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Eric Edward Hotung; 1st Defendant: Ho Yuen Ki; 2nd Defendant: Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung; 3rd Defendant: Sean Eric Mclean Hotung; 4th Defendant: Hillhead Limited; 5th Defendant: Sheridan Patricia Hotung Shea; 6th Defendant: Gabrielle Marie Hotung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 2008
Case Number
HCMP4511/2002
Procedural Posture
Costs Taxation Appeal (consolidated Civil Actions) / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Taxation Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Joint and Several Retainer, Taxation of Costs, Construction of Retainer Agreements, Evidence of Settlement, Interpretation of Contractual Documents
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Law Contract Law Trusts and Estates Solicitor Client Retainer Law Joint and Several Retainer Taxation of Costs Construction of Retainer Agreements +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Edward Hotung

Plaintiff

Ho Yuen Ki

1st Defendant

Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung

2nd Defendant

Sean Eric Mclean Hotung

3rd Defendant

Hillhead Limited

4th Defendant

Sheridan Patricia Hotung Shea

5th Defendant

Gabrielle Marie Hotung

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Taxation Appeal (consolidated Civil Actions) / Judgment on Appeal From Master's Taxation Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether retainers with two firms of solicitors created joint, several or joint and several liability
  2. 2 Whether a settlement between the plaintiff and the 3rd and 5th defendants had been proved
  3. 3 Whether the master erred in holding the retainer to be joint and several

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts and all relevant background the parties and the solicitors intended a joint and several retainer: the retainer letters, the conduct of the parties (pattern of payments), affidavit evidence from the 2nd defendant and the representing solicitor, and commercial common sense supported the master's finding; the alleged settlement was not proved by direct evidence, so the master's taxation decision was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi that the 2nd defendant will have his costs of this appeal (to be taxed if not agreed)