23 Sept 2024
竹林明堂有限公司 對 陳祺豐
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 2547
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA2782/2015
Both appeals were dismissed. The 2015 and 2016 retainers are irrelevant to the scheduled costs assessment; even if the 2017 retainer were invalid an implied retainer could impose liability for reasonable fees, so the costs assessment should proceed. A Protective Costs Order was refused because the matters are not of broad public importance and the defendant has a private interest. The registrar's orders are reheard and given appropriate weight; appeals did not warrant stay of the costs assessment. Defendant must pay plaintiff's costs of the appeals and plaintiff's costs are to be summarily as…
- Protective costs order
- Costs assessment
- Validity of retainer/authority to sign
- Implied retainer
- Duty of parties under o.1a r3
- Appeal from registrar (rehearing)