Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 67 legal practitioners ordinance

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

LING CHUN LUNG v. MESSRS RAYMOND LAM & ASSOCIATES SOLICITORS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP651/2025

The appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiff failed to establish that his application was made within one month of delivery as required by s.67(1) LPO; live factual disputes about delivery render the summary procedure under s.67(1) inappropriate and the matter is not properly resolved by an originating summons under that provision; the Master’s dismissal was therefore correct.
29 May 2025

TSE YUN LAM ARIES v. C & T LEGAL LLP (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2342
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1044/2024

No special circumstances within s67(2) were established: the bill was sufficiently particular; allegations of overcharging, duplication and clerical charging were unsubstantiated given the urgency and complexity of the injunction work; unpaid counsel's fees did not constitute special circumstances; failure to advise of the right to tax was not triggered. Accordingly the originating summons for taxation was dismissed.
26 Mar 2024

ACCURATE CONTRACTORS & RENOVATORS CO LTD v. MESSRS WONG & LAWYERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP66/2023

The originating summons seeking taxation of Bills 1-3 was dismissed because the claims could and should have been raised in earlier proceedings (HCMP 217/2022) and were intentionally excluded or abandoned, such that permitting taxation now would amount to an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson principle; the first-regime did not apply and the court refused relief under s.67(2) in the exercise of its discretion and ordered costs against the plaintiff.
22 Feb 2023

SINOSTATE ENTERPRISES AND OTHERS v. OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2178/2021

Master held that taxation costs form part of the solicitor's bill and are to be taken into account when comparing a sanctioned offer with the amount allowed; plaintiffs failed to beat the sanctioned offer and therefore did not automatically obtain taxation costs, but the Court exercised its reserved discretion under s.67(5)(b) LPO to refuse plaintiffs' taxation costs because of plaintiffs' conduct and other special circumstances; defendant's application for indemnity/enhanced costs was dismissed because the defendant's large late discount suggested an inflated bill and did not justify further…
11 Nov 2021

RICH TREND LTD v. WONG, HUI & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3471
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP63/2021

The court held that the plaintiff is the party chargeable with Fee Note 7; clause 9 of the SPA did not create a trust nor divest the plaintiff of beneficial interest in costs on account; unilateral deduction by the solicitor without notifying or obtaining authority from the plaintiff does not amount to payment under section 67; Fee Note 7 therefore falls within the second regime and leave to tax both Fee Note 7 and the Final Bill is granted, subject to an interim payment condition of HK$1,060,000.
12 Mar 2013

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)

Citation

LAU YUE KUI AND OTHERS v. PHILIP CHAN & CO (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP593/2007

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked merit: the plaintiffs have an interest in taxation under the Consent Order and no viable ground was shown to challenge the ruling that s.68(2) interest need not be financial. Consequently no stay was considered. A certificate for two counsel was warranted given the technical issues and the parties' positions. On summary assessment a broad-brush approach was applied and the two bills were assessed at HK$250,000 (hearing below) and HK$370,000 (appeal); costs of this hearing were ordered payable by the respondent in the sum of HK$80,…
27 Dec 2012

DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS v. KING & WOOD (a firm)

Citation

DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS v. KING & WOOD (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1817/2011

The court accepted the plaintiffs' oral evidence that the solicitor assured the fees were interim and subject to review, found the 1st–4th bills were true interim bills and therefore plaintiffs were entitled as of right to taxation of all five bills; alternatively, even if those bills were interim final bills, the court would exercise its discretion under s 67(2) LPO to order taxation of the 1st–4th bills because special circumstances (overcharging, lack of particularity and unfairness) justified taxation without conditions; costs of the action reserved pending taxation and order nisi on cost…
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…
13 Sept 2007

LEE CHI ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. KC HO & FONG (a firm)

Citation

LEE CHI ENTERPRISES CO LTD v. KC HO & FONG (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP61/2007

The Recorder held that the interim and final bills constituted parts of one continuous bill; because the final part was delivered within 12 months the whole series fell within s.67(2) second regime and was liable to taxation; the court would not exercise its discretion to refuse taxation but imposed terms requiring payment into court as security.
12 May 2007

CHAN BOON NING JOHN v. OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS

Citation

CHAN BOON NING JOHN v. OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2166/2005

The court found the evidence on delivery and dates of receipt was materially in dispute and insufficiently proved by the Defendant, and alternatively that exceptional circumstances existed (including apparent duplicated charges, overcharging, failure to apply an agreed 25% discount and an unauthorised unilateral set-off of HK$342,343.19) to justify leave for taxation despite timing issues; accordingly the bills were ordered to proceed to taxation and the pending District Court action stayed; costs ordered for the Plaintiff.