LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER

LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER

The court found that the defendants and their solicitors failed to produce an unfavourable Lands Department Reply and provided no credible explanation; that failure was an unreasonable omission by the solicitors that caused the plaintiff to incur wasted costs; accordingly it was just to make a wasted costs order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendants' Solicitors / Legal Representative: T.C. Lau & Co. and Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 December 2010
Case Number
HCMP344/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Costs / Wasted Costs Application / Reasons for Judgment on Costs (judgment Handed Down)
Outcome
Wasted costs order made against defendants' solicitors (T.C. Lau & Co.) and their handling solicitor Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin; indemnity costs awarded to the plaintiff; costs of the application to be paid to the plaintiff on indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Order, Non Disclosure of Documents, Solicitor Misconduct, Indemnity Costs, Disclosure Obligations, Small House Grant Declaration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Professional Misconduct Property Law Wasted Costs Order Non Disclosure of Documents Solicitor Misconduct Indemnity Costs +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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

T.C. Lau & Co. and Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin

Defendants' Solicitors / Legal Representative

Procedural Posture

Civil Costs / Wasted Costs Application / Reasons for Judgment on Costs (judgment Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to produce the Lands Department Reply amounted to a wasted costs-causing omission by the defendants' solicitors
  2. 2 Whether the omission was deliberate concealment or inexcusable oversight
  3. 3 Whether it is just to order the legal representatives to compensate the plaintiff for costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants and their solicitors failed to produce an unfavourable Lands Department Reply and provided no credible explanation; that failure was an unreasonable omission by the solicitors that caused the plaintiff to incur wasted costs; accordingly it was just to make a wasted costs order against T.C. Lau & Co. and their handling solicitor Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin and to award indemnity costs to the plaintiff, including costs of the application on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Wasted costs order made against defendants' solicitors (T.C. Lau & Co.) and their handling solicitor Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin; indemnity costs awarded to the plaintiff; costs of the application to be paid to the plaintiff on indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Wasted costs order made against T.C. Lau & Co. and Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaintiff's summons.
  • T.C. Lau & Co. and Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin to pay indemnity costs to the plaintiff, jointly and severally, to be taxed if not agreed.