Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Engagement letters

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2022

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1743
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP880/2020

The summons to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed; the Foundation was the effective winner by obtaining taxation of 54 of 76 bills and was entitled to wait for final bills; WG's monetary argument based on aggregate fees not ordered for taxation does not make it the effective winner; WG's conduct complaints and delay do not justify varying the order nisi, and WG bore some responsibility due to unclear engagement letters and its fiduciary obligations.
3 Dec 2021

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3639
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP877/2020

Engagement letters governed the retainer and expressly contemplated interim fee notes with a final fee note upon conclusion; therefore interim bills were not periodic final bills and the limitation for taxation runs from delivery of the final bill for each matter; where matters had concluded or retainer was terminated and final fee notes issued, taxation was barred for bills paid or more than 12 months old; natural breaks doctrine does not displace clear contractual terms; website-updated terms not binding absent notice; abuse of process not established; court ordered taxation of the majority…
3 Dec 2021

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3639
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP881/2020

The engagement letters unambiguously provided for interim fee notes and a final fee note upon conclusion; accordingly interim bills issued under those engagement letters were not to be treated as periodic final bills for limitation purposes and the right to taxation generally ran from delivery of the final fee note for each matter; natural breaks do not apply where the retainer provides for interim billing; accordingly most fee notes were taxable except certain fee notes that were final on completion or otherwise time‑barred or previously paid/recovered.
25 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC67/2008

Most of the expert's fees and disbursements, including those subject to contractual fee caps in the engagement letters, were properly and reasonably incurred and allowed; however translation of the report and the charge for reviewing prosecution witness transcripts were beyond the proper scope of recoverable defence costs and were disallowed. The taxed hourly rate for the forensic accounting expert was acceptable in the absence of evidence it was excessive.
25 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC188/2008

The taxing master found the majority of the expert fees and disbursements were properly and reasonably incurred and within the scope and caps of the agreed engagement letters and therefore allowed them; two items were outside the retainer and were wholly disallowed—professional fees for translating the report into Chinese (item 1257, HK$50,000) and fees for reviewing prosecution witness transcripts (item 1438, HK$72,000)—total disallowance HK$122,000; costs of the review were awarded to the claimant, taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.
10 Feb 2006

TSANG KA YUEN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT v. DIORVA GARMENTS LTD

Citation

TSANG KA YUEN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT v. DIORVA GARMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3293/2003

The court found on the evidence that Diorva agreed to the $2,800 hourly rate, the hours charged were not excessive or unreasonable given the scope and complexity of the tax investigations and consolidated accounts, and Mr Tsang was entitled to judgment for $4,430,800 with interest from 11 June 2003.
31 Jul 2002

CHIU PUI WAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SAI WING t/a PHILIP S W CHAN & CO.

Citation

CHIU PUI WAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SAI WING t/a PHILIP S W CHAN & CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA330/2001

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant acted only as a witness as evidenced by separate engagement letters signed by the parties; no wider solicitor-client relationship existed, therefore no duty to advise arose, there was no proven false representation, and in any event the plaintiffs' losses were caused by their decision not to proceed following the property market collapse rather than any breach by the defendant; plaintiffs' claims dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. WILKINSON & GRIST (a firm)

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO

HKSAR v. YIP KIM PO

TSANG KA YUEN CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT v. DIORVA GARMENTS LTD

CHIU PUI WAN AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SAI WING t/a PHILIP S W CHAN & CO.