Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Engagement letter

  • 2 Dec 2011

    DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    DAVID KONG v. PINE GROWTH MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW321/2006

    The court refused to amend the prior order or engagement letter because the matters raised were or could have been raised earlier and there was no substantive need to alter the terms; valuers are not obliged to obtain additional valuations at this late stage where prior valuations exist; inspection rights remain limited as per the 2007 consent order; costs of the applications are payable by the Respondents to the Petitioner on a party-and-party basis.

  • 2 Dec 2011

    DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW322/2006

    The court declined to amend its prior order of 10 November because the issues raised were matters that had been or could have been addressed earlier, the engagement letter as originally drafted did not unreasonably require further valuations for assets already valuated years earlier, and there was no need to create an amendment that might permit valuers to avoid obtaining necessary valuations; accordingly the court dismissed the respondents' summonses, directed the respondents to sign the engagement letter within three days, and awarded the Petitioner's costs on a party-and-party basis.

  • 23 Nov 2005

    BDO INTERNATIONAL v. PO SUN HOLDING GROUPS LTD

    Citation
    BDO INTERNATIONAL v. PO SUN HOLDING GROUPS LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ16280/2000

    On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that defendant's agent Mr Barry Leung instructed a hard close at 30 April 1999 for the draft report and declined a second field visit; those instructions did not vary the engagement letter and Mr Barry Leung lacked authority to vary the final cut-off date, but he had authority to agree a practical hard close for a draft; the draft delivered was the best possible given the timetable and thus entitled the plaintiff to the HK$150,000 fee payable on submission of the draft.