JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm) v. JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm) v. JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

The court granted final judgment for the plaintiff because the defendants' counterclaim was not a genuine bona fide triable defence capable of defeating an Order 14 application; the application for taxation was discretionary under s67 LPO and, being tactical, was refused; and a stay was refused because exceptional circumstances existed (absence of bona fide defence, potential dissipation of assets and tactical conduct), with costs to the plaintiff.

Citation
JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm) v. JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Johnson Stokes & Master; 1st Defendant: Jackin Total Fulfilment Services Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ho Yin King Helena
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2007
Case Number
HCA304/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Solicitor's Fees Recovery and Related Applications / Summary Judgment Hearing and Judgment Delivered
Outcome
final judgment for the plaintiff; originating summons dismissed; stay refused
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Taxation of Bills (s67 Legal Practitioners Ordinance), Stay Pending Winding Up (companies Ordinance S181), Bona Fide Defence Requirement, Discovery, Causation in Negligence
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Company Law Arbitration Professional Negligence Costs Summary Judgment (order 14) Taxation of Bills (s67 Legal Practitioners Ordinance) +4 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johnson Stokes & Master

Plaintiff

Jackin Total Fulfilment Services Limited

1st Defendant

Ho Yin King Helena

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Solicitor's Fees Recovery and Related Applications / Summary Judgment Hearing and Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the counterclaim raised a bona fide triable issue to resist summary judgment
  2. 2 whether the client had a right to taxation of the bills and whether the court should exercise its discretion under s67 LPO to order taxation
  3. 3 whether a stay of proceedings should be granted pending winding-up petition under Companies Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted final judgment for the plaintiff because the defendants' counterclaim was not a genuine bona fide triable defence capable of defeating an Order 14 application; the application for taxation was discretionary under s67 LPO and, being tactical, was refused; and a stay was refused because exceptional circumstances existed (absence of bona fide defence, potential dissipation of assets and tactical conduct), with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

final judgment for the plaintiff; originating summons dismissed; stay refused

Orders

  • Final judgment for the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in terms of Items (a), (c), (d) and against the 2nd defendant in terms of Item (f) of the prayer of the Amended Statement of Claim; costs of the action and the Order 14 summons to be taxed if not agreed
  • Originating Summons dismissed with costs in favour of the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed