Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of retainer

Legal area

Court

7 Nov 2008

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GARY K.W. TAM t/a GARY K.W. TAM & CO (a firm)

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GARY K.W. TAM t/a GARY K.W. TAM & CO (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2987/2003

The action was dismissed because the plaintiff engaged in prolonged, inexcusable and contumelious delays and breaches of a consent order that caused prejudice (including likely fading witness memory), demonstrating an abuse of process and no intention to bring the proceedings to an end; settlement negotiations did not justify the inactivity.
14 Feb 2006

SIMMONS & SIMMONS SOLICITORS (a firm) v. THOMAS JOSEPH DILLON, JR.

Citation

SIMMONS & SIMMONS SOLICITORS (a firm) v. THOMAS JOSEPH DILLON, JR.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2784/2003

The retainer's US$20,000 was an estimate, not a cap, based on the express wording of the retainer letter and the parties' conduct; there was insufficient evidence of duplicative or excessive charging; the defendant's taxation application was out of time for s67(1) and in any event the court refused to exercise its s67(2) discretion because the application was not bona fide and was being used to delay payment; accordingly plaintiff entitled to judgment for outstanding fees plus interest and costs.
3 Jan 2006

WIN SOURCE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WILLIAM ALVIN HUI AND OTHERS

Citation

WIN SOURCE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WILLIAM ALVIN HUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2464/2003

Although there was reason to believe the plaintiff would be unable to pay defendants' costs and the defendants showed a high likelihood of success on liability, there was insufficient evidence that ordering security would stifle the plaintiff's claim and, on balance of the discretionary factors, an order for security for costs was inappropriate; appeal dismissed.
9 May 2002

RAY CHEN v. ANITA WAN CHING LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

RAY CHEN v. ANITA WAN CHING LAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4582/2001

The appeal is dismissed and the Statement of Claim is struck out because the plaintiff knew of and could and should have raised the Prohibition Order-related and other negligence claims in the earlier 2nd Action; failing to do so without sufficient justification renders the present proceedings an abuse of process and unjust harassment of the defendants, warranting strike out and costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. GARY K.W. TAM t/a GARY K.W. TAM & CO (a firm)

SIMMONS & SIMMONS SOLICITORS (a firm) v. THOMAS JOSEPH DILLON, JR.

WIN SOURCE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WILLIAM ALVIN HUI AND OTHERS

RAY CHEN v. ANITA WAN CHING LAM AND ANOTHER