23 Jul 2023
The judge concluded that several claimed time items were excessive and there were duplications; he upheld HK$75,000 for the summons hearing brief, reduced the substantive hearing brief from HK$160,000 to HK$100,000, and, applying a broad‑brush assessment, fixed the total costs at HK$500,000 in favour of the defendant.
7 Nov 2019
Although some aspects of the defendant's conduct unreasonably increased costs to the necessary degree, that did not justify an indemnity costs order; on summary assessment the court allowed only fees for one counsel and reduced solicitors' costs to HK$250,000, resulting in a total award of HK$450,000 payable by the defendant to the plaintiff forthwith.
31 May 2011
The appellants failed to prove that the retainers were on a time-spent basis or that the 4 October 1991 letter established an agreed fee-offsetting arrangement; the letter was a proposal in the context of Hong Kong scale-fee conveyancing and could not be transposed into an accepted basis for Mainland projects; the trial judge erred to the extent he treated the letter as the agreed basis, and on the entirety of the evidence the firm failed to establish liability by the developers, so the appeal is dismissed.
12 May 2009
The court held that, under ss.58,60,63 and 66 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, the plaintiff (Raymond Chu & Co.) is precluded from recovering fees on the basis of an alleged oral fixed fee agreement and must first deliver properly itemised bills which the defendant may have taxed; Order 14A was an appropriate procedure to determine that legal question and the court consequently made directions for delivery of documents and bills and awarded costs of the summons to the defendant.
31 Mar 2009
The Statement of Claim was struck out and the action dismissed because there was no real and present justiciable dispute between KLY and Midland as to legal or equitable rights: the nature and extent of KLY's fee entitlement was a matter between KLY and the Owners already determined in prior proceedings, continuation of this action would amount to a collateral attack on those decisions and thus an abuse of process, and Midland's entitlement to the net sum was not contested such as to create a justiciable dispute with KLY.
20 Aug 2007
The review is dismissed because the earlier fee estimate was an unenforceable estimate not a binding cap, the receiving party was afforded opportunity to provide supporting documents and the taxation was conducted properly with appropriate reductions; the applicant must pay two thirds of the taxed costs as calculated and the receiving party is entitled to the costs of the review.
2 Aug 2007
The court exercised its discretion to grant the retrospective validation order because, viewed objectively at the time the work was done and the validation application was made, the legal services were rendered in good faith and for the benefit of the company and its creditors as a whole; knowledge of the petition was not fatal; the subsequent failure of the proposed transaction cannot be used with hindsight to deny validation; no special circumstances justified taxation of the bills, and the costs order of Deputy Judge To did not convert the validation application costs into petition costs r…
16 Aug 2006
Because the defendant did not pursue taxation of the bills and the 20% discount was a conditional offer that lapsed on non-payment, and because the plaintiff demonstrated application of the two settlement sums to outstanding fees while acknowledging specific amounts to be credited, the court entered judgment for the plaintiff for the net balance of HK$149,459, awarded interest at commercial rate and costs to the plaintiff.
17 Nov 2004
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.
7 Jul 2004
The engagement letter did not create a fixed fee; it established hourly charging rates and an estimate only, and the defendant's account that a firm fixed fee of HK$900,000 was agreed was not believable against contemporaneous documents; the Power of Attorney was validly executed and the plaintiff properly applied bail funds to fees; consequently there was no triable issue and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff subject to taxation of the bill.