Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Personal liability of solicitors

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2025

FARMAN v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE sued for and on behalf of DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2025] HKDC 112
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4463/2023

The summons to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed as wholly without merit; the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs summarily assessed at HK$85,000; the plaintiff's solicitors were found to have advised and caused an ill-conceived, baseless application and were ordered to personally bear the wasted costs, including an earlier-adjudicated wasted cost of HK$6,900 and the summarily assessed costs of HK$85,000 to be paid forthwith by the solicitors.
4 Nov 2020

SMARTEK E & M ENGINEERING (HK) LTD v. WIN WIN WAY CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1005
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5104/2017

The court found the adjournment caused by the plaintiff solicitors' failure to comply with Practice Directions; that fault justified requiring the plaintiff's solicitors to bear all costs thrown away; solicitors were given 14 days to show cause why they should not be personally liable and why costs should not be assessed on an indemnity basis; the trial was adjourned to a new fixed date.
20 Dec 2016

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1341/2014

The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and made it absolute; ratification cured any initial lack of authority so Linklaters is not personally liable for pre-ratification costs; YDL's directors are not personally liable as they were not the true beneficiaries of the action; the mandatory injunction and action stand and Ricky Liu must bear costs of YDL's representation and his application to vary, with specified apportionments and directions for filing fresh costs statements.
7 Feb 2007

B+B CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD./ WAI NAI YIP formerly t/a KA YIP MACHINE & ENGINEERING CO. v. LAI KI

Citation

B+B CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD./ WAI NAI YIP formerly t/a KA YIP MACHINE & ENGINEERING CO. v. LAI KI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3402/2003

The court held that Master Ho's order must be construed as limited: Ip, Kwan & Co. are personally liable only for the costs 'of and occasioned by' their invalid introduction of the 1st Plaintiff (i.e. the additional costs caused by the wrongful joinder), not for a 50% apportionment of the entire action's costs; taxation must proceed on that limited basis and Master Hui's contrary ruling is set aside.
30 May 2003

SMART CROWN INVESTMENT LTD v. LIU CHIU KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

SMART CROWN INVESTMENT LTD v. LIU CHIU KWAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3367/2001

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.
13 Dec 1995

K.B. CHAU & CO. v. CHINA FINANCE TRUST AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION

Citation

K.B. CHAU & CO. v. CHINA FINANCE TRUST AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/1995

The solicitors in charge failed to verify and deliberately presented a misleading affirmation for an ex parte Mareva injunction; that breach of duty as officers of the court caused wasted costs and justified personal liability of the solicitors to indemnify the defendant for its costs, to be taxed on an indemnity or solicitor-and-own-client basis as appropriate.
2 Nov 1995

LAI SAU KING v. LAM CHARP FAT

Citation

LAI SAU KING v. LAM CHARP FAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV117/1995

Although substantial wasted costs were incurred in preparing voluminous bundles, the court was not satisfied there had been such dereliction of duty by the solicitors as to justify making a personal costs order under Order 62 r8; accordingly the appeal was dismissed with costs on a common fund basis and the solicitors were not ordered to bear the other side's photocopying charges.
20 May 1993

HO LEE MAN v. WONG WAI KAI

Citation

HO LEE MAN v. WONG WAI KAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV183/1992

The solicitors proceeded with a costs-only appeal without obtaining the statutory leave required by s.14(3)(e), failed to take inexpensive and straightforward steps to mitigate the risk (such as applying for leave in writing or suspending briefs), and their ignorance and incompetence amounted to gross dereliction of duty; accordingly the solicitors were ordered personally to refund disbursements (including counsel fees) and to indemnify the respondent for party-and-party taxed costs of the aborted appeal.