Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intervention costs

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2025

THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. YEUNG NORMAN MAN KIN (previously practising as a sole proprietor of Norman M K Yeung & Co)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP826/2025

The court accepted and approved the intervention agent's verification methodology as bona fide, rational and reasonable; held that sufficient notice had been given and no further advertisement was required; ordered pari passu distribution of the Firm's New Client A/C and distributable office account monies to verified claimants (excluding claims filed after the date of the order); authorized disposal of firm documents in accordance with Law Society retention policy and prior authority; and ordered that intervention costs be paid from office monies received after the intervention to the extent…
31 Jan 2023

THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. LI HOI KWONG (previously practising as a sole proprietor of Li & Associates)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 263
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1616/2022

The Court held that the Council validly holds the Firm's client funds on statutory trust following the intervention and may apply a bona fide, rational and reasonable verification methodology to identify beneficially entitled claimants and distribute funds without further advertisement given delay; files may be destroyed in accordance with Law Society retention guidance and statutory record keeping rules; intervention costs are recoverable from the solicitor and may be paid from the Firm's office account and remaining client account funds; costs were ordered on a solicitor and client basis an…
30 Jun 1999

Yau Chung Wo Jeremiah v. The Law Society of Hong Kong

Citation

Yau Chung Wo Jeremiah v. The Law Society of Hong Kong
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP425/1999

The Council had a justified and properly evidenced assessment that the appellant faced substantial liabilities (client account deficiency, intervention costs and a judgment), intervention costs are statutorily recoverable under Schedule 2 para.10 and therefore properly relevant to an assessment of financial fitness, the appellant produced no evidence he could discharge those liabilities, and on that basis the Council did not err in finding him unfit to practise and refusing a practising certificate.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. YEUNG NORMAN MAN KIN (previously practising as a sole proprietor of Norman M K Yeung & Co)

THE COUNCIL OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG v. LI HOI KWONG (previously practising as a sole proprietor of Li & Associates)

Yau Chung Wo Jeremiah v. The Law Society of Hong Kong