Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implied retainer

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2025

HO YUEN YU IVY v. ZHANG LIHUA

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2461
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1789/2024

The indemnity principle was not breached because DeHeng provided contemporaneous drafts and deadlines to BEA, BEA tacitly consented by failing to object, later expressly agreed and paid the bill; however DeHeng’s hourly rates and total claimed legal costs were disproportionate to the straightforward, low‑complexity disclosure task, so on summary assessment the legal costs were reduced to HK$15,000 with administrative compliance charges of HK$1,520 allowed on indemnity basis.
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…
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

HCA142/2016

The appeals are dismissed because the 2015/2016 retainers are irrelevant to the costs assessment, an implied retainer would bind the plaintiff to pay reasonable fees even if the 2017 written retainer were invalid, and a Protective Costs Order is inappropriate because the proceedings do not engage public interest; accordingly the defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeals and the plaintiff's claimed costs are to be assessed by summary procedure.
30 Dec 2022

TAM YUK CHING AND OTHERS v. HOOSENALLY & NEO (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1511/2020

P1's claim for HK$5,712,000 was struck out because the Statement of Claim failed to plead facts establishing a duty owed by D1 to P1 in the KV Property transaction and therefore disclosed no reasonable cause of action. P1's claim for HK$5,508,000 was not struck out because, on the pleaded facts, it was not plain and obvious that the claim was barred by the no reflective loss principle and a trial could find P1 suffered the loss personally.
12 Oct 2017

CHAN CHUN CHUEN v. KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm)

Citation

CHAN CHUN CHUEN v. KAO, LEE & YIP (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA597/2015

The specific allegation that an express oral agency agreement was concluded in mid‑1993 was struck out because it was plainly and obviously diametrically inconsistent with the plaintiff's earlier, positive pleadings in the judicial review that there was no retainer and the defendant's address was ineffective; the plaintiff offered implausible explanations and produced no reliable evidence for the oral agreement, such that advancing that allegation amounted to an abuse of process. Other allegations (informal arrangement, reliance, duties) were not struck as they were not necessarily inconsiste…
23 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. WONG CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI WAI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2012

Conviction quashed: although objectively the intended evidence was not covered by legal professional privilege, there was an arguable basis for the appellant to believe an implied retainer and privilege existed; causing letters to a prosecution witness to press her to raise a privilege application did not, on the proved facts, have the requisite tendency to impair the court's capacity to administer justice and therefore did not constitute the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
2 Mar 2012

HKSAR v. WONG CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC203/2010

Where approach to a prosecution witness employs threats, misleading or intimidatory correspondence timed to impede or overbear the witness's free choice, and is aimed at diverting the judicial process, the conduct can constitute an attempt to pervert the course of public justice even if a privilege argument is advanced; on facts the court upheld Wong's conviction for intentional improper pressure but quashed Yeung's conviction as unsafe because his role and mens rea were not established and he acted largely as a cipher.
2 Mar 2012

HKSAR v. YEUNG WAI BIRNEY

Citation

HKSAR v. YEUNG WAI BIRNEY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/2010

The Court held that contacting a prosecution witness is not per se unlawful but letters here constituted improper pressure and intimidation designed to force the witness to act against her will by asserting privilege or refraining from testifying; such means had the requisite tendency and intention to pervert the course of public justice and sustained conviction of Wong. By contrast Yeung's conviction was unsafe because his role was largely peripheral, he acted as a cipher signing letters on counsel's instructions and the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he possessed th…
2 Nov 2004

CHAN, LEUNG & CHEUNG (a firm) v. PMM TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

CHAN, LEUNG & CHEUNG (a firm) v. PMM TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4771/2003

There was no sufficient evidence of an express oral retainer by the Defendant; the 30 June 2001 letter and subsequent communications were insufficient to establish solicitor-client retainer in face of the Defendant's denial and witness evidence, so the plaintiff had no authority to charge the defendant and the claim failed.