6 Jan 2026
TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm)
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 122
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA1511/2020
Court found on objective analysis that Madam Tam was not HN's client; HN's retainer was to Blissful Voice in a conveyancing role instructed via director Ngai; Ngai's knowledge was attributable to the company; the alleged wider duties (to advise on commercial valuation, to investigate vendor/nominee arrangements beyond conveyancing checks, or to advise the majority shareholder personally) were not owed; no breach of the pleaded duties was established and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with costs to HN.