Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retainer agreement

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2026

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2098
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2023

The Master held that the proposed contractual claims arise from the same debt and facts and therefore are permitted amendments which disclose a reasonable cause of action, but the fraud allegations constitute a new cause of action for which no supporting affidavit was provided to meet the service-out requirements, and therefore those fraud amendments are disallowed; accordingly D2's strike-out application is dismissed and P's amendment is allowed in part.
19 Sept 2023

LAM LAI KIU KELVIN AND NG TSZ KIN BRIAN t/a YU & ASSOCIATES, SOLICITOR v. CHEUNG SAU CHU ROSANNA

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2375
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA12/2023

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Defendant failed to identify any arguable question of law or that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction; the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by evidence and not perverse; and the refusal to grant further time was a lawful exercise of case management discretion, so no arguable grounds of appeal existed.
26 Jul 2021

賴容對叶美好

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1055
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2020

Appeal dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements (did not obtain a certificate of reasons from the taxing officer and did not particularise objections as required by Practice Direction 14.3), and there was no substantive evidence to displace the taxing officer's assessment of bill B93 which had been determined after a hearing and with reference to the parties' submissions and the taxing bundle.
5 Aug 2020

CRB (a firm) v. MARK RICHARD CHARLTON SUTHERLAND

Citation

[2020] HKDC 624
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4528/2019

Dismissal of the summary judgment application was required because plaintiff's affidavit did not sufficiently verify the pleaded 'agreement in writing' and a triable issue exists that the unsigned draft retainer required signature to bind the parties; additionally s67(2) LPO does not operate as an automatic stay and the defendant's stay/adjournment applications were refused because they were last‑minute, self‑induced and prejudicial to the plaintiff.
16 Jun 2016

DEXTER LAM & CO (A FIRM) v. DING YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

DEXTER LAM & CO (A FIRM) v. DING YU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1480/2015

Where the defendant (Ding Yu) was served and failed to appear or oppose, the court properly entered judgment for the billed amount 13,576,115 against Ding Yu without taxation; the 2nd defendant (HKF) had no locus to prevent entry of that judgment and may, if later faced with a renewed claim, challenge quantum on sufficient grounds; HKF ordered to pay plaintiff costs summarily assessed at $5,500 and costs for Ding Yu to be determined in writing.
21 Mar 2016

CHEN NINGNING v. KING & WOOD (a firm)

Citation

CHEN NINGNING v. KING & WOOD (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP163/2012

On the balance of probabilities the alleged Pre-retainer Agreement and the 2nd set of oral representations did not exist; the contractual retainer was wholly contained in the written Retainer Letter so extrinsic conflicting terms were inadmissible; the 3rd Bill was a final agreed bill for the period and the defendant was estopped from issuing the 4th Bill which covered the same period so the 4th Bill is not entitled and is struck out; because the 1st–3rd Bills had been paid and the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite special circumstances under s67(2) to reopen taxation, the plaintiff…
10 Jul 2015

HAMPTON, WINTER AND GLYNN (a firm) v. VILUMS ROLANDS JANIS

Citation

HAMPTON, WINTER AND GLYNN (a firm) v. VILUMS ROLANDS JANIS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ820/2014

Defendant failed to demonstrate real and bona fide defences on the grounds of alleged errors in bills, a fee cap agreement and negligent advice, but did raise a triable issue as to the construction and effect of the 5 December 2013 Letter and whether the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the retainer; accordingly the plaintiff's summary judgment summons was dismissed and unconditional leave to defend was granted, with consequential directions and a costs order nisi in favour of the defendant for HK$800.
21 Mar 2014

ASAHI IWASAWA & ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD v. SEC (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

ASAHI IWASAWA & ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD v. SEC (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW215/2013

The petition was dismissed because the Court was satisfied the Company had established bona fide disputes on substantial grounds both as to AIA's claimed additional fees (HK$375,000) and the management accounts fee (HK$102,000), so the statutory demand was disputed and did not justify winding-up.
4 Oct 2011

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 defendant signed and accepted the terms of the 1st and 2nd retainers and by his subsequent conduct (consent to transfer, requests for bills, assignment correspondence) retained the plaintiff; his oral assertions of a no‑fee assurance were disbelieved; therefore judgment entered for the plaintiff and the plaintiff's bill is to be referred to the taxation master for determination of reasonableness.
27 Jul 2011

CHAN SAU MUI AND ANOTHER v. TO CHEONG LAM

Citation

CHAN SAU MUI AND ANOTHER v. TO CHEONG LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7415/1995

Where a retainer predates a published increase in average rates and there is no evidence of agreement to vary the retainer, the higher post‑1995 hourly rate cannot be allowed on taxation; the taxed rate must be the reasonable rate as at the time the retainer was entered (HKD 3,200) and the paying party cannot be ordered to pay more than the defendant's contractual liability.