SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

The Master concluded that the plaintiff had been materially disadvantaged because he did not have the true figures for the claimant's profits costs when negotiating the compromise; accordingly that part of the bill was reopened and the compromise set aside for re‑taxation. The court found insufficient evidence of...

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; 6th Defendant: Hotung Shea Gabrielle Marie Hotung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2008
Case Number
HCMP4511/2002
Procedural Posture
Review of Taxation / Costs Dispute / Decision on Review (master's Decision)
Outcome
Part of the amended bill (Part I profits costs) reopened and review of taxation allowed; compromise set aside insofar as profits costs were concerned.
Legal Topics
Review of Taxation, Setting Aside Compromise, Calderbank Offers, Disclosure and Non‑disclosure, Indemnity Principle
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs and Litigation Funding Trusts and Trustees Review of Taxation Setting Aside Compromise Calderbank Offers Disclosure and Non‑disclosure Indemnity Principle

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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

5th Defendant

Hotung Shea Gabrielle Marie Hotung

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review of Taxation / Costs Dispute / Decision on Review (master's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the compromise on profits costs should be set aside given alleged concealment of true billing figures
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff negotiated at a substantial disadvantage due to lack of material information
  3. 3 Whether the solicitors for the 2nd defendant (OLN) deliberately concealed material facts

Ratio Decidendi

The Master concluded that the plaintiff had been materially disadvantaged because he did not have the true figures for the claimant's profits costs when negotiating the compromise; accordingly that part of the bill was reopened and the compromise set aside for re‑taxation. The court found insufficient evidence of deliberate concealment by OLN but held re‑taxation would not prejudice the 2nd Defendant and allowed the review, awarding the plaintiff the costs of the review against the 2nd Defendant (taxed if not agreed) and a certificate for counsel.

Court Disposition

Part of the amended bill (Part I profits costs) reopened and review of taxation allowed; compromise set aside insofar as profits costs were concerned.

Orders

  • Part I of the amended bill to be reopened and re‑taxed.
  • Plaintiff entitled to costs of the review against the 2nd Defendant, taxed if not agreed.