Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Authority to instruct solicitors

Legal area

Court

17 Jun 2010

LIEU TSENG VAN v. JIUZHOU DEVELOPMENT CO LTD

Citation

LIEU TSENG VAN v. JIUZHOU DEVELOPMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1645/2009

The court dismissed the injunction application: the confidentiality/set-off claim lacked sufficient particularity and evidence to show damages likely exceeded the earnest money at the time of Receiver appointment; some contractual points (entitlement to demand repayment under clause 3.2.1 and related triable issues) and revocation arguments were triable but did not sustain interlocutory relief; the Registrar correctly accepted the Receivers' filings under s.348 as not manifestly unlawful; King & Wood lacked shown authority for Super Cruise filings and those documents were struck out; certain…
5 Mar 2010

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHAMPION COURT v. PANG PING FAN PETER AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHAMPION COURT v. PANG PING FAN PETER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP172/2010

There was no breach of the indemnity principle because the solicitors were engaged on the usual basis, the Incorporated Owners had sanctioned preliminary payment and subsequently resolved any instruction issues, and thus they could not refuse to pay the proper fees; accordingly leave to appeal was refused.
5 Jan 2010

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHAMPION COURT v. PANG PING FAN PETER AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHAMPION COURT v. PANG PING FAN PETER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV317/2006

Appeal dismissed because the Incorporated Owners had given instructions and prevailed; appellants failed to prove lack of authority or a contingency agreement and raised the matter too late for taxation challenge, so taxation may proceed under the existing order.
22 Jan 2009

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION v. YING KONG CO LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION v. YING KONG CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM375/2007

The amended summons was dismissed: even if section 20A applied and tender was not complied with the contract between the IO and SKLAC could at most be voidable and remained valid until avoided by the IO; SKLAC had authority to act until and unless the IO avoided the contract; there was no basis to set aside the notice to act, stay or strike out the Applications, or to order personal indemnity costs against SKLAC; paragraph 1B seeking s20A(7)/(8) relief also failed because the Respondent lacked standing to seek that relief in these proceedings.
22 Jan 2009

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION v. YING KONG CO LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION v. YING KONG CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM372/2007

On the facts and material before the tribunal, even if section 20A(2) applied and was not complied with, the contract between the IO and SKLAC could not be declared void on the available evidence and at most was voidable by the owners; SKLAC had authority to act and the notice to act was valid until the IO elects to avoid the contract; Ying Kong's amended summons seeking stay/striking out, setting aside the notice and personal costs was dismissed and the tribunal would not exercise section 20A(7) relief in these proceedings.
22 Jan 2009

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION v. YING KONG CO LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JET FOIL MANSION v. YING KONG CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM371/2007

Even if section 20A applied and was not complied with, the contract between the IO and SKLAC could at most be voidable and not void; therefore SKLAC retained authority to act until the IO avoided the contract, there was no basis to stay or strike out the Applications, no basis to set aside the notice to act, and no basis to make SKLAC personally liable for costs. The amended summons was dismissed.
13 Mar 2003

RE SAINT POWER INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

RE SAINT POWER INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1309/2002

The application for provisional liquidators was adjourned because those on the record for the Company lacked demonstrated authority to act, factual disputes existed in evidence filed in opposition (so the petitioner’s material could not be treated as uncontradicted), and the petitioner offered no explanation for delay in seeking provisional relief; accordingly it was inappropriate to make the appointment at the hearing and the matter was adjourned to allow opponents to regularise representation and advance their case and for submissions on costs.
29 Mar 1978

RE RAJA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

RE RAJA ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW14/1976

Messrs. Hastings & Co. were personally liable for costs arising from their continued opposition from 21 May 1976 onward because the Official Receiver's declared support (as controller of Mosbert Holdings' voting power) effectively nullified any authority claimed by opposing instructing parties; petitioner is entitled to solicitor-and-client costs for the May hearings while the Official Receiver is entitled to party-and-party costs, subject to the later variation recorded.
RE RAJA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

RE RAJA ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW14/1976

On the undisputed material the Official Receiver, as beneficial owner of virtually all issued shares, is the proper representative of Raja Enterprises Ltd; the documents relied on to show an effective transfer of those shares were unsubstantiated (unsealed, unstamped, incomplete and unregistered); accordingly Messrs. Hastings & Co. had no authority to oppose the petition and the court must refuse the company's application to file the late affidavit and dismiss filings made in the company's name by Mr. Choh Yet.