Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor personal liability

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2024

YOUNG CRYSTAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2422
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1710/2021

The Leave Application was procedurally hopeless and abusive because it could not affect the dismissal of the action; the plaintiffs' solicitors (S.W. Wong & Associates) unreasonably pursued that application instead of prosecuting the Tang Appeal and thereby assisted in an abuse of process; given the solicitors' conduct and the broader pattern of unmeritorious litigation and non-compliance, the court ordered indemnity costs and a wasted costs order against the solicitors personally, with costs to the Defendant and a certificate for counsel.
3 Sept 2021

LO KING HUNG v. ETERNAL RICHEST LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1127
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1134/2019

The defendant's prolonged, unexplained and repeated non-compliance with multiple court orders and failure to respond to correspondence caused severe delay and prejudice to the plaintiff; that conduct justified an unless order with strike-out consequences, allocation of wasted costs to the defendant, indemnity costs to the plaintiff, summary assessment and an order requiring the defendant's solicitors to show cause why they should not personally bear the wasted costs.
30 Nov 2010

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG

Citation

TANG WAI CHO v. TANG WAI LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV116/2010

On the evidence before the court, including the letters from the defendant's solicitors and from the defendant, the Court held that the defendant's solicitors should not be personally responsible for the costs of the appeal.
- Solicitor personal liability
- Costs of appeal
28 Dec 2007

LEUNG LIN KO v. YEUNG CHUN HUNG t/a CHUN HUNG ENGINEERING CO AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG LIN KO v. YEUNG CHUN HUNG t/a CHUN HUNG ENGINEERING CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI567/2005

Because the defendant\'s offer was expressly inclusive of taxing fee the taxing fee must be included when assessing whether the offer was beaten; there is no established 50% taxing fee discount practice to be applied as a matter of course; and there was no evidence to justify making solicitors personally liable, the application to vary the order nisi was dismissed.
15 Sept 2006

AU SHUI LIN v. STAR CRUISES (HK) LTD

Citation

AU SHUI LIN v. STAR CRUISES (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI504/2006

Default judgment was set aside because the defendant promptly applied, and the affidavit evidence demonstrated a real prospect of success on the specific defence of contributory negligence; however, solicitor negligence caused the default and justifies indemnity costs with the solicitor ordered to show cause why they should not personally bear costs.
15 Sept 2006

POON YAT LAM ILUM v. CHAN CHI WAI

Citation

POON YAT LAM ILUM v. CHAN CHI WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI462/2003

The court exercised its discretion to award costs to the defendant for the period from 14 days after the filing of the last notice of payment (7 July 2005) to the date of trial because the plaintiff failed to accept the payment in within the 14‑day period and did not provide sufficient justification for the delay; the court left open the possibility of ordering plaintiff's solicitors personally to pay costs under O 62 r 8 but did not make such an order without affording them an opportunity to show cause.
7 Dec 2004

YEUNG SHU LAM WILSON t/a WILSON YEUNG & CO v. CHAN SUI TING AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG SHU LAM WILSON t/a WILSON YEUNG & CO v. CHAN SUI TING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA284/2002

Master Levy was wrong to make Quan personally liable for wasted costs of the adjournment because there was substantial compliance, no contumelious default and no necessity for the adjournment; Master De Souza's refusal to review the taxation was also wrong because the 2nd allocatur was improperly issued; leave to appeal out of time was granted on the strength of the merits and balancing of prejudice.
8 Sept 2003

LAI CHEUNG TEXTILES LTD v. CHINA PROFIT ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

LAI CHEUNG TEXTILES LTD v. CHINA PROFIT ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2346/2003

The Court granted a three-day extension to the Defendant to file and serve its Defence and Counterclaim and, having assessed conduct and wasted steps by both parties, ordered that each party bear its own costs of the summons; the Court identified HK$400 as a reasonable consent fee but declined to award costs on that basis and reserved any decision to make personal orders against solicitors pending further procedure.