Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitors' conduct

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2024

BLACK BEAR ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD AND ANOTHER v. LUXOTICO HK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1711
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP37/2019

Master held r32C(1)(b) did not apply because alleged misconduct before or during proceedings was not made out; r32C(1)(a) applied for failure to comply with PD 14.3 duty to try to reach amicable settlement but prejudice to Paying Parties was minimal, so global reduction was unjustified; only Item 7 (communication time) was reduced from SK45 to SK15 (HK$1,450) and the review of taxation was dismissed with costs to the Receiving Parties payable on party and party basis to be summarily assessed by paper disposal.
21 Jul 2021

CLY formerly known as CHY v. CFM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKFC 144
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2797/2017

The summons for further and better particulars was obviously defective; therefore a wasted costs order on an indemnity basis was made against the petitioner's solicitors and the costs of the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 6th respondents were summarily assessed at $15,200 each based on 4 hours at $3,800 per hour.
3 Apr 2000

WONG SUI CHU v. HUNG PING CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG SUI CHU v. HUNG PING CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI960/1999

A psychiatric report reliant on a videotaped interview made without informing the plaintiff's solicitors and without informed consent is not acceptable; videotaping of such interviews is unjustified except in exceptional circumstances with agreement, protocol and court approval, and the defendants' solicitors' failure to inform amounted to unprofessional conduct warranting an order nisi for costs to be paid by the defendants' solicitors on a common fund basis for wasted hearings.
7 Dec 1998

SECAN LTD. v. WONG PING WAI

Citation

SECAN LTD. v. WONG PING WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5227/1996

Because the defendant's material (including independent expert evidence) was not complete until shortly before the hearing and because the plaintiff could not justifiably be criticised for opposing the application on that basis, the court held the original order nisi (that costs be costs in the plaintiff's cause) should be made absolute; however, on the subsequent costs application the court ordered the defendant to pay the costs of that application in any event given the parties' correspondence and offers.

Hong Kong Case Law

BLACK BEAR ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LTD AND ANOTHER v. LUXOTICO HK LTD AND ANOTHER

CLY formerly known as CHY v. CFM AND OTHERS

WONG SUI CHU v. HUNG PING CHUN AND ANOTHER

SECAN LTD. v. WONG PING WAI