Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Negligence of solicitors

Legal area

Court

26 Jun 2014

HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

Citation

HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1325/2011

Specific discovery was ordered in part: documents under Reference Number 404 relating to RIM limited to the period March 2010–June 2011 (Classes A.1–A.5) were relevant and necessary and must be disclosed; discovery of broad accounting vouchers/transactions to/from all entities in Annexures A and B (Class B), partnership deed/minutes (Class C), police/CCB statements (Class D) and earlier accountant's reports 2007–2009 (Class E) were refused as irrelevant, overbroad or unnecessary; redactions to the 2010–2011 accountant's reports were upheld because Hind failed to discharge heavy burden to rebu…
20 Dec 2001

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV322/2001

Damages for the owners' loss of their old flats resulting from the solicitors' negligent advice are to be quantified by reference to the contractual benefits under the sale/option (option/swap) agreements (contract price plus agreed allowances and payments) as the best evidence of the market value of the old flats at the relevant time (1994); rental allowances to be assessed for two years with interest thereafter on the purchase price, interest at HSBC prime +2%; defendants entitled to indemnity for sums payable to plaintiff and to recover reasonable costs on a common fund basis; credits for…
7 Sept 1990

CARRIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. DEACONS (a firm)

Citation

CARRIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. DEACONS (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV120/1990

The Court upheld the trial judge's discretionary decision to allow the Amended Particulars because they raise a concrete issue whether Deacons were negligent in failing to give specific warnings and are not merely hypothetical; and the refusal to strike out the claim for recovery of fees attributable to the Wimbush scheme was correct because whether the work was rendered wholly fruitless by negligence is a factual matter for trial. Both appeals were dismissed.
9 Oct 1984

GOBIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS

Citation

GOBIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4611/1978

The court ruled that the pleaded negligence allegation concerning advice about avoiding fulfilment of the conditional Herald Luxim contracts had no real prospect of success on the merits and, in any event, the pleadings failed to particularise the claim adequately; accordingly the allegation was not open and cannot be sustained on the existing pleadings.

Hong Kong Case Law

HIND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. K & L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS

CARRIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. DEACONS (a firm)

GOBIND MOHAN AND ANOTHER v. BRIAN SHANE MCELNEY AND OTHERS