Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retainer

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2017

FIRST ASIA FINANCE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TSO AU YIM & YEUNG

Citation

FIRST ASIA FINANCE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TSO AU YIM & YEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2128/2013

Plaintiff's case failed because the judge found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable, accepted that the defendant acted only for Asset Channel and did not assume responsibility to the plaintiff (no identity of interest and no clear retainer), found the agreement not invalid for uncertainty, and found no proven causation or loss; accordingly the claim in negligence and contract was dismissed.
24 Dec 2010

WILLIAM ALLAN v. MESSRS NG & CO. (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

WILLIAM ALLAN v. MESSRS NG & CO. (a firm) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10844/1994

Court found that confidential information was imparted to Erving during the 1st Call, that Erving (and his firm) owed a duty of confidence notwithstanding no formal retainer, that Erving breached that duty and compounded the breach by knowingly giving false affidavits and withholding recording/transcript; breach warranted punitive response and exemplary damages were awarded in the sum of HKD 2,140,000 with interest and costs and a referral to the Law Society for disciplinary proceedings.
27 Jul 2010

SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH, DAVID AND OTHERS

Citation

SUN LEGEND INVESTMENTS LTD v. HO YUK WAH, DAVID AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV242/2009

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misconstrued the decisive document (the 4 October 1991 letter); the letter unambiguously contemplated conveyancing scale fees charged to purchasers with any agreed division of those scale fees to be applied to non-conveyancing work, not a mechanism to permit solicitors to charge developers on a time-cost basis for conveyancing. Because the express terms barred recovery of time-based conveyancing charges from the developers, the trial judge was wrong to allow the solicitors' bills; implied-term and quantum meruit claims inconsistent with the expres…
8 May 2009

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN

Citation

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1155/2008

The judge accepted that the Defendant presented evidence capable of belief that Mr Eric Chan assured him no fees would be charged for the Taxation Case and that the surrounding circumstances made it sensible for the Defendant to rely on that assurance; accordingly the Defendant established a meritorious defence and was granted unconditional leave to defend the Plaintiff's claim. The judge also accepted at this stage that an assignee may bill under the LPO authorities cited and made costs directions for the O.14 summons.
27 Nov 2008

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

Citation

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2820/2002

On the factual matrix (retainer letters addressed to the sons, the content of the two firms' letters, affidavit evidence showing the 2nd defendant and solicitor believed liability was joint and several, the pattern of haphazard payments and practical reality of a common defence), the court concluded the parties intended a joint and several retainer; the master’s taxation finding was therefore correct; the alleged settlement was not proved by admissible evidence and did not affect the outcome.
21 Jul 2006

YEUNG PING HUNG t/a ALFRED YEUNG & CO v. HA CHIU PING AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG PING HUNG t/a ALFRED YEUNG & CO v. HA CHIU PING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4370/2003

The $15,000 award was a substantive reimbursement (not nominal) and the Plaintiff was overall successful to a small extent; fairness justified depriving the Plaintiff of his costs on his main claim but the Defendants, being wholly unsuccessful on their counterclaim, must pay the Plaintiff's costs on the counterclaim (taxed if not agreed) and must pay costs of the variation application.
17 Nov 2004

LO KA YING t/a LAWRENCE K.Y. LO & Co. v. LEE SZE KWONG WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO KA YING t/a LAWRENCE K.Y. LO & Co. v. LEE SZE KWONG WILLIAM AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6390/2003

The court found an oral retainer existed between the Plaintiff and the two Defendants for the conduct of the litigation; the second signed quotation was a fee agreement limited as to G-Prop's engagement (to consider merit only) which ended when counsel advised no defence; consequently the Defendants (jointly with G-Prop to the extent of the deposit) were liable for the 1st Bill but the Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to the 2nd Bill due to lack of confirmed instructions and evidence of work, and therefore judgment was allowed for the 1st Bill and the 2nd Bill dismissed.
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.
14 Jul 2003

DESMOND YIU CHOWN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. CHOW WAI LAM WILLIAM AND AND ANOTHER

Citation

DESMOND YIU CHOWN LEUNG AND OTHERS v. CHOW WAI LAM WILLIAM AND AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14712/1999

The court found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Chow did not draft the loan or supplemental agreements and did no more than witness signatures; he did not accept instructions to act for the plaintiffs, did not open a file or charge fees, and did not assume a duty to advise beyond answering narrow questions; accordingly there was no contractual retainer and no tortious duty of care owed to the plaintiffs, so their claims fail.
10 Feb 1984

STIKEMAN, ELLIOTT v. WONG MING YUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

STIKEMAN, ELLIOTT v. WONG MING YUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV113/1983

The Court held that a retainer existed and the solicitors were entitled to recover reasonable fees and disbursements, but on the proper construction of the parties' relationship Wong acted as agent for his companies and did not personally contract; accordingly the personal judgment against Mr. Wong was set aside and judgment for the sum claimed was entered against Berdaland Co. Ltd.; the plaintiffs did not elect to abandon their alternative claim and the Respondent's Notice was sufficient or could be treated as a Cross-notice out of time.