Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor's undertaking

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2001

RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. CHOW KAM FAI, DAVID

Citation

RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. CHOW KAM FAI, DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10190/2000

Because the stay application had been determined against the defendant and the defendant failed to show special circumstances or to file evidence opposing the O.14 application, the court refused the adjournment and allowed the summary judgment application process to proceed; an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings and an undertaking to repay renders an execution before appeal non-nugatory.
17 Nov 2000

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K L MAN & CO. (a firm)

Citation

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K L MAN & CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2000

The undertaking requires delivery of an assignment that passes title but is not an absolute obligation; the respondent is liable only if he failed to take reasonable care to ensure the person executing was the registered owner, and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and must be set aside.
17 Jul 2000

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K L MAN & CO. (a firm)

Citation

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K L MAN & CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2000

The undertaking required that the vendor's solicitor deliver documents capable of passing title, but it was not an absolute undertaking to guarantee against fraud by an impostor; the proper standard is whether the solicitor took reasonable care to identify the vendor and ensure the documents were properly executed. Because that is a question of fact, summary judgment was inappropriate.
27 Jul 1999

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. YORKFAIR ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. YORKFAIR ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3477/1999

The appeal was dismissed because the Statement of Claim raised an arguable case that the deeds were deposited as security and that the surrounding circumstances (including alleged agency) had to be examined; the solicitors' undertaking did not conclusively bar the bank's substantive claim as a matter of law, and the case was not a plain or obvious one warranting striking out.
13 Oct 1998

KOON TUNG YING v. LAU CHUP HEI

Citation

KOON TUNG YING v. LAU CHUP HEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV80/1998

Leave to appeal was granted; the court fixed a conditional requirement that if legal aid is not granted within 28 days the applicant must enter security under s.25(2)(a) Cap. 484 in the sum of $400,000, and if legal aid is granted the respondent may apply for security for costs; respondent's solicitors gave an undertaking not to release client funds without further order.
9 Jun 1992

LAU MUI FUN AND OTHERS v. K.C. CHAN CO. AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU MUI FUN AND OTHERS v. K.C. CHAN CO. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP572/1992

The undertaking to return the title deeds was clear, absolute and enforceable on demand; the purchasers' asserted lien failed because the Confirmor had lost any proprietary interest (deposit forfeited) and the deeds were delivered for a special purpose; client instructions and the solicitors' claim to interplead do not excuse breach; accordingly the court ordered immediate return of the deeds and granted an indemnity against the solicitors for loss consequential on the breach.
13 Aug 1980

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. POMAY INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. POMAY INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2401/1976

J.S.M. breached the duty of care by failing to give consideration to the risks of accepting an undertaking from a one-man small firm and by failing to advise the plaintiff and the purchaser's directors to insist on a safer English‑style completion; the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against D1–D5 for the loan sums and D1–D4 and D5 are jointly indemnified by J.S.M.; J.S.M. is liable to indemnify the defendants in the sums specified.

Hong Kong Case Law

RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. CHOW KAM FAI, DAVID

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K L MAN & CO. (a firm)

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K L MAN & CO. (a firm)

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. YORKFAIR ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS

KOON TUNG YING v. LAU CHUP HEI

LAU MUI FUN AND OTHERS v. K.C. CHAN CO. AND OTHERS

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. POMAY INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS