Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Scope of retainer

Legal area

Court

3 Sept 2025

LEE YIN KEUNG JACKY v. LILY FENN & PARTNERS (A FIRM)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP63/2022

Where a taxing master has been directed by the court to determine issues integral to taxation, including preliminary questions about retainer and liability, those decisions fall within the taxation regime and the statutory review procedure in O.62 rr.33-35 must be followed; an appeal under O.58 was misconceived and the Notice of Appeal and amendment application were dismissed. Masters derive jurisdiction to hear such matters from O.32 r.11 and the court’s directions.
24 Jun 2025

GAIN GLOBAL CORPORATION LTD v. FONGS (a firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCA 586
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV153/2024

The Court held that the defendant did not assume a duty to verify the Borrower’s identity or to guarantee good title beyond the retainer; the tenancy agreement and stamp certificate were not title documents and the defendant’s conduct did not breach the reasonable standard of care; the plaintiff could not advance an unpleaded argument that the defendant was put on inquiry; indemnity costs were justified on the basis of the defendant’s Calderbank offer and the plaintiff did not obtain a better outcome at trial.
20 May 2020

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HO ON MANSION v. HERMAN H M HUI & CO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1608/2019

The court held that, applying principles in Wentworth and authorities on ownership of solicitors' files and the scope of retainer, the Plaintiff was entitled to delivery up or copies (as appropriate) of specified documents falling within categories 1,3,4,5 and 7 (originals of contracts settled by the Defendant relating to the Repair Work; originals of contracts prepared by third parties; originals of bank receipts/payment notices from owners; copies of client account bank statements showing dealings with the Plaintiff's funds, suitably redacted; copies/originals of correspondence and letters…
19 Mar 2020

YIP KIN KWAN KENNETH v. RICH WELL FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 456
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2181/2016

The court held the Firm did not breach its duty: its duty was limited by the express retainer to prepare and arrange execution of documents and incidental tasks; it reasonably checked the HKID and signatures and was entitled to rely on the Moneylender's prior approval and commercial verification; the Moneylender bore primary responsibility for commercial verification and risk, and therefore the Moneylender failed to prove negligence and causation by the Firm.
28 Jun 2019

DYMOCKS FRANCHISE SYSTEMS (CHINA) LTD v. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT HONG KONG (A Partnership)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1602
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA613/2015

The Engagement Letter and background communications established a retainer broad enough to encompass advising on risks arising from taking over the franchise business; a reasonably competent Hong Kong franchise/commercial solicitor would have warned of the TBPCO risk; the defendant failed to do so and that breach caused the plaintiff's loss; damages were assessed and awarded to the plaintiff accordingly.
20 Dec 2013

LOU SIU PING AND ANOTHER v. LAM TSZ MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LOU SIU PING AND ANOTHER v. LAM TSZ MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV134/2012

Where a solicitor was retained and paid in the context of an intended conveyancing transaction and actively participated (including retaining title deeds), it was fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty to advise the lay purchasers of the distinction between the documents prepared and an immediate transfer of title and of the inherent risks; the 2nd Defendant breached that duty and the breach caused the Plaintiffs' loss; the appeal is dismissed.
11 Dec 1998

FOSHAN HUA DA INDUSTRIAL CO. v. JOHNSON, STOKES & MASTER (a firm)

Citation

FOSHAN HUA DA INDUSTRIAL CO. v. JOHNSON, STOKES & MASTER (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12997/1995

The retainer was limited to preparing documentation and incidental advice for an HK$8.5m advance; the defendant warned the plaintiff about the missing original share certificates and advised waiting and alternatives; the plaintiff elected to proceed despite warnings; on the evidence the defendant did not breach its contractual or tortious duties and plaintiff's claim failed.
26 Oct 1998

FOSHAN HUA DA INDUSTRIAL CO. v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (A FIRM)

Citation

FOSHAN HUA DA INDUSTRIAL CO. v. JOHNSON STOKES & MASTER (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12997/1995

The judge admitted the expert evidence because s.58(1) renders opinion evidence prima facie admissible and the proposed evidence addresses matters of specialist practice and risks in a field where the court lacks expertise; admitting it does not abdicate the court's ultimate decision which remains for the judge at trial.