Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Professional negligence

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2024

YU & ASSOCIATES, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. LAM SIK YING aka LAM SIK YING VICTOR, Administrator for the Estate of LAM TIM alias STAN LAM TIM, deceased

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1041
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4169/2017

The court accepted the plaintiffs' contemporaneous documentary evidence and the testimony of the handling solicitor, rejected the defendant's untested written allegations and unproven defences (including alleged full payment, estoppel, lack of disclosure and overcharging), held the bills were validly delivered and not subject to timely taxation, entered judgment for the plaintiffs for the stated sums, awarded interest at 1% per month from each bill's due date to judgment and thereafter judgment rate, and ordered costs against the defendant.
16 Sept 2019

方素豪對法律援助署

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1051
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV590/2018

The appeal is dismissed because the new claim is substantively the same as prior dismissed claims and thus falls within and is prohibited by the existing restriction on proceedings; the restriction remains effective and the court may also impose limits on future appeals under Practice Direction 11.3; accordingly the plaintiff may not re‑open the same claim and must pay the defendant's costs.
30 Aug 2019

CHIU KWAI PING v. YIP, TSE & TANG (A FIRM)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2118
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2159/2016

On the pleaded facts it was not plainly and obviously unarguable that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued in 2008; the claimed loss could be contingent until subsequent encumbrances materialised, so the strike‑out on limitation could not be ordered. Therefore the defendant's strike‑out application was dismissed and the claim was allowed to proceed.
22 Aug 2012

JOHNNY K K LEUNG & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm) v. LO MEI KIN STELLA

Citation

JOHNNY K K LEUNG & CO, SOLICITORS (a firm) v. LO MEI KIN STELLA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2008/2010

Defendant failed to raise a credible, particularised triable issue on the quantum of the bills or to pursue taxation within the statutory framework; late, non‑evidenced itemised objections were insufficient to defeat summary judgment, so final judgment for the full amount was entered.
8 May 2008

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV156/2007

The Court held the pleaded facts were sufficient to found causes of action under s8 of the Protection of Investors Ordinance and in negligence against the named defendants in specified respects; the 4th defendant was liable under s8 but not under the Hedley Byrne heads; the 5th defendant's action was incorrectly struck out below and is restored for claims under s8 and for breach of trust; the strike out applications otherwise failed.
8 May 2008

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TERKILD JOHAN TERKILDSEN AND ANOTHER v. BARBER ASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV163/2007

Pleadings as framed disclosed reasonable causes of action: claims under s.8(2)(a)(iii) and (b)(iii) of the Protection of Investors Ordinance were adequately pleaded against the first and second defendants; the third defendant was properly pleaded as liable for negligence, Ordinance liability and breach of trust given his central role in correspondence and fund distribution; the fourth defendant could incur s.8 liability as a director of the first defendant; the appeal was allowed insofar as the action against the fifth and seventh defendants was restored for claims under the Ordinance and for…
19 Dec 2005

NGO TAI HONG v. ENDENNE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NGO TAI HONG v. ENDENNE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7988/2000

The court found that the vendor and its directors knowingly produced false DLOYL documents thereby committing fraudulent misrepresentation; rescission of the Assignment was appropriate but to protect the plaintiff from immediate displacement rescission is conditional upon payment by the defendants of assessed damages (HKD 1,324,902.50) plus interest; the solicitors were not negligent or in breach for acting on the documents provided and their conduct did not cause the loss.
28 Apr 2003

JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD v. K.B. CHAU & CO. (a firm)

Citation

JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD v. K.B. CHAU & CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4486/2001

The prerequisite under s.357 was satisfied because Junsa was a shell company with no assets or business and credible evidence it could not pay defendants' costs; the court exercised its discretion to order security after balancing potential injustice and found no evidence Junsa could not obtain funds from its shareholders or backers and that unwillingness of some shareholders to fund litigation is not a defense; therefore the Master's security orders (HK$850,000 to Appearance; HK$1,000,000 to Vigers and Mr Fong; HK$700,000 to K.B. Chau & Co.) were upheld and the appeals dismissed.
28 Apr 2003

VIGERS HONG KONG LTD v. JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

VIGERS HONG KONG LTD v. JUNSA DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5173/1998

The prerequisite under s.357 was satisfied because Junsa was an impecunious shell company with negligible assets and no business; the court properly exercised its discretion to order security because there was no evidence Junsa could raise the required funds from other shareholders or backers and its impecuniosity was not caused by the defendants; orders made by the Master (Appearance HK$850,000; Vigers and Mr Fong HK$1,000,000; K.B. Chau & Co. HK$700,000, up to and including trial) were reasonable and were affirmed; the appeals were dismissed and costs of the appeals were ordered payable to…
14 Jan 2002

PETER PO FUN CHAN v.THE HONG KONG SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS

Citation

PETER PO FUN CHAN v.THE HONG KONG SOCIETY OF ACCOUNTANTS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL637/2001

The Registrar and Council acted lawfully in referring and constituting disciplinary proceedings; anonymous or allegedly unlawfully obtained documents may be considered where they are relevant; no evidence of dishonest handling by Society officers; no breach of Article 14; procedural fairness was observed as the applicant was given opportunities to respond; negligence is properly pursued under the Ordinance without proof of damage; there was no duty to seek advice and the procedural challenges failed.