Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retainer agreements

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

FLYING FINANCIAL SERVICES HOLDINGS LTD v. MESSRS. CHIU & PARTNERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2045
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP130/2022

Bill No.1, though delivered more than 12 months prior, must be taxed because special circumstances exist: absence of agreement on fees for Additional Work, lack of particulars (fee earners, time spent), and real prospect of duplication/overcharging justify taxation by a taxing master; however the company remains liable for annual retainer fees because Mr Zheng had apparent authority to sign the retainer agreements; taxation ordered with interim payment conditions to protect solicitor's financial position.
10 Jul 2020

GOLD HORN INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. SO KEUNG YIP & SIN (A FIRM)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1418
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1164/2019

The Court held there was no triable issue or arguable defence: the engagement letters and bills established liability (including Mr Poon's joint and several liability); the alleged oral deferral until QT/TSXV listing lacked particulars and was contradicted by the written retainers and contemporaneous conduct; bare allegations of excessive fees without particulars did not defeat summary judgment. Summary judgment on liability was entered and taxation of the bills was permitted only subject to specified interim payments and time limits.
15 Feb 2016

K&LGATES (A FIRM) v. DING YU AND ANOTHER

Citation

K&LGATES (A FIRM) v. DING YU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1569/2015

Although the retainer was valid on its face, the court found as a matter of fact and law that it was unfair and unreasonable insofar as it bound HKF because HKF's role in the underlying action was nominal, its funds would be expended in a partisan shareholder dispute benefitting DY, and post-judgment/litigation funding fees were improperly tied to the company; accordingly the agreement was set aside under s.60 LPO and the originating summons for taxation dismissed.
2 Feb 2010

YEUNG YEUK SUT v. TSE CHUN YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

YEUNG YEUK SUT v. TSE CHUN YIP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA682/2006

The retainer was a lawful time‑rate agreement and not a contingency fee arrangement; the Office Bill, not the Revised Bill, represented the clients' liability to their solicitors; the Taxation Bill sought amounts in excess of that liability and therefore breached the indemnity principle; an item‑by‑item comparison is required to quantify the overreach and the parties must produce agreed figures for the Registrar's approval.
9 Aug 2005

BATES CHINA LTD v. CASH ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

BATES CHINA LTD v. CASH ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1675/2003

The court found on the balance of probabilities that oral agreements existed adopting the terms of the unsigned Agency Agreements (except the bonus clause), that defendants accepted those terms by conduct (including payment of the stated retainer), and that plaintiffs provided services during the relevant periods; accordingly defendants were liable to pay the agreed monthly retainer fees for the claimed periods with contractual interest and costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

FLYING FINANCIAL SERVICES HOLDINGS LTD v. MESSRS. CHIU & PARTNERS

GOLD HORN INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. SO KEUNG YIP & SIN (A FIRM)

K&LGATES (A FIRM) v. DING YU AND ANOTHER

YEUNG YEUK SUT v. TSE CHUN YIP AND OTHERS

BATES CHINA LTD v. CASH ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER