Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court varied a costs order nisi, awarding indemnity costs after 26 June 2025, refusing a certificate for two counsel, and declining to decide enhanced interest.
The Court of First Instance dismissed a law firm’s claim against a former consultant solicitor over alleged undercharging, poor records, file removal and deleted data.
The Court of Appeal refused a 2nd defendant’s bid to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, finding the Ladd v Marshall conditions were not met and costs were awarded.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an architect’s disciplinary appeal, upholding findings of misconduct and neglect in supervision, certification, and contract administration.
The court granted leave to amend pleadings in an audit negligence claim, holding the new matters were relevant, not plainly out of scope, and not shown to cause amendment-specific prejudice.
On the balance of probabilities the court accepted plaintiff's witnesses and contemporaneous evidence that the solicitors' letters were delivered to the intermediary in October 2019, and accepted the insurer's evidence that it only received them on 20 March 2020; the delay was caused by the intermediary/defendant, not the plaintiff; the intermediary had a duty to forward claim documents and to supervise staff; defendant breached that duty and caused the insurer to decline cover, therefore defendant is liable to reimburse the settlements and legal costs awarded.
Source excerpt
The Court of First Instance dismissed a post-decision stay application, holding that alleged negligence by the plaintiff’s own lawyers did not justify staying execution.
Court granted the 2nd Defendant security for costs, ordering the BVI plaintiff to pay HK$900,000 into court after finding it was out of the jurisdiction and at risk of not satisfying costs.
The court found the defendants liable for misusing Diagcor’s confidential Y-test information to launch a competing test, and held the 3rd defendant negligent in one thalassemia report.
The court dismissed a solicitors’ negligence claim, holding that Madam Tam was not the firm’s client and that the pleaded wider duties were not owed.
Explore more
