19 Nov 2007
Evidence established solicitors had repeatedly advised the client and the client (Mr Chung) elected to proceed; absent evidence of professional misconduct or default of the required quality, the stringent test under RHC Order 62 Rule 8 is not satisfied and solicitors cannot be ordered to pay costs personally.
21 Jun 2003
The majority held the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under Order 62 r 8 because Ma acted as solicitor in the proceedings (issued the writ, drafted pleadings, acted for two months and testified) and her conduct in initiating and continuing a contrived, unmeritorious action amounted to misconduct in the course of the proceedings that wasted costs; accordingly an order for solicitor-and-own-client costs (subject to specified exclusions and taxation and credit for recoveries) and indemnity costs for the show-cause summons was justified. The court dismissed the appeal except for limited variatio…
30 May 2003
The summons (except the table) and the affirmation were unnecessary and thus their costs were wasted, but the wasted costs arose from an error of judgment rather than misconduct or default of sufficient seriousness to attract a personal costs order under Order 62 rule 8; therefore the master's order requiring the appellant solicitors to personally bear those costs was set aside and replaced with no order as to costs.