Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim vs final bills

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2025

LAU KWAN v. TONYS LAWYERS (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1079/2024

Engagement Letter Clause 4 authorised periodical final bills; the 2021 bills were issued and treated as final bills and were paid more than 12 months before commencement of proceedings, so taxation is barred by s67; the 2023 bill may be taxed but taxation is ordered only on condition that plaintiff pays HK$1,220,863 to defendant and HK$1,220,863 into court within 42 days, with credit for sums received and refund if overpaid; costs to follow the event and order nisi for costs awarded to defendant.
31 Dec 2024

LEE CHOI HO v. MESSRS. COLLIN NG & CO., SOLICITORS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP777/2021

The court held that the Taxing Master has jurisdiction to determine the terms and extent of the retainer and to take evidence under O62 r14; parties must present disputes to the taxing master first and, if subsequent developments render the taxation order untenable, the parties must apply to a judge to set aside and re-open the order rather than expecting the taxing master to refer matters back to the judge unilaterally; consent orders disposing substantive relief remain binding.
4 Nov 2022

MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND v. CRB (a firm)

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3382
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2285/2019

Court found that (i) a retainer existed despite being unsigned and the hourly rates in the unsigned retainer were accepted by the client through conduct (and on quantum meruit the same rates would be allowed); (ii) bills 1-6 were interim, bills 7-9 final, with the 8th already paid; (iii) negligence allegations are triable and constitute a possible 'special circumstance' but cannot be determined on this OS; and (iv) accordingly the court made orders to tax subject to payment terms to protect the solicitor while permitting the client's negligence counterclaim to proceed: refer 1st-7th bills to…
11 Mar 2020

CHINA HEALTH GROUP LTD (formerly CHINA HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS LTD) v. CHIU & PARTNERS (A firm)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1636/2017

The originating summons was within 12 months because the court found on the balance of probabilities the 2nd last bill was delivered on 8 August 2016; the HK$300,000 retainer is an advance lump sum not refundable or taxable, the remainder of bill 16-0475 and bill 16-0555 are interim and subject to taxation, and the firm must file a narrative breakdown for fee earners with fees over HK$50,000 to enable proper taxation; no special conditions for taxation were imposed.
31 Dec 2018

GAO HAIYAN AND ANOTHER v. C L CHOW & MACKSION CHAN (a firm)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1741/2017

The court held the Original Bill and the derived 1st and 2nd bills were interim bills, not interim final bills, because there was no contractual authority or natural break empowering the solicitor to issue final interim bills and the plaintiffs did not intend to accept them as final; consequently the time for taxation ran from the 3rd (final) bill in March/May 2017 and the plaintiffs are entitled to taxation under s67(2). The court imposed conditional terms of interim payment (70% to solicitor and 20% into court) on a nisi basis as a fair requirement before taxation proceeds.
18 Apr 2018

WITHERS (A FIRM) v. ANTONIA BASILE also known as ANTONIA BASILE WILSON

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 509
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1162/2016

Late summonses and affidavits were dismissed for lack of justification under the Civil Justice Reform; the defendant could not change basis to common law taxation at a late stage and had not identified disputed items with sufficient precision; four bills delivered and paid more than 12 months prior were not open to taxation under s.67(2)(b)(ii); six other bills paid but delivered less than 12 months were referable to taxation because special circumstances were established (litigation funding by husband, contemporaneous complaints, evidence of duplication/excessive charging) and therefore thos…
20 May 2015

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. K C HO & FONG (a firm)

Citation

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. K C HO & FONG (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP61/2014

Master Wong held that on the facts most disputed bills (Bills 1,2,3,4,5,7) were paid or properly set off from costs on account and therefore fell within the payment/12‑month regimes under s.67 so the plaintiff had to show special circumstances and failed to do so; Bill 11 (disbursement for counsel) was not ordered taxed because the application was not bona fide and taxation would serve no useful purpose; only Bills 6,8,9 and 10 were ordered to be taxed provided security of HKD 1,500,000 is paid into court by a fixed date, with stay of actions until taxation and default resulting in no taxatio…
23 Aug 2012

TIANJIN TEXTILES (HONG KONG) LTD v. S. K. WONG & CO (a firm)

Citation

TIANJIN TEXTILES (HONG KONG) LTD v. S. K. WONG & CO (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2019/2011

The court found the seven bills constituted a series of interim bills so time ran from the final bill, but because the bills had been paid the plaintiff needed to establish special circumstances under s.67(2); the evidence established special circumstances only in respect of the last two bills (because the director who approved earlier bills had resigned and therefore could not validly approve the last two), whereas allegations of excessive charges for the first five bills were unsupported and defeated by evidence of approval, so only the last two bills were ordered referred to taxation and t…
15 May 2006

ORIENTAL PROPERTIES LLC v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm)

Citation

ORIENTAL PROPERTIES LLC v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1281/2005

The first four bills formed part of the defined Debt and were included in the purchase price paid to HSBC and therefore were not bills chargeable to Oriental and not subject to taxation; the fifth bill was distinct, payable by Oriental under clause 9 and is taxable; accordingly the Master's order taxing only the fifth bill is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.