7 Apr 2022
The Bill was validly delivered by the Defendant Firm by the 20 May 2021 letter which expressly presented the Bill on behalf of the Plaintiff; H & I had ostensible authority in the context to receive the Bill; accordingly the originating summons for taxation under s.67 LPO is granted.
1 Feb 2019
Defendant, as a held‑out salaried partner entrusted with independent conduct of clients, owed fiduciary and duty‑of‑care obligations to the plaintiff; he knew or ought to have known the client Au's precarious finances, failed to obtain sufficient costs on account and failed to attempt to exercise a lien over the settlement cheque, and those failures caused the plaintiff's recoverable losses; additionally the defendant knowingly misrepresented his intention re emigration to induce early release; therefore judgment for plaintiff for specified damages and costs.
27 Jul 2016
The court held the plaintiff had substantially obtained the relief sought by enforcing the Allocatur and was therefore entitled to discontinue with costs; the defendant's counterclaim alleging plaintiff's negligence and non-disclosure was plainly unsustainable because the delay was caused by the defendant's failure to provide documents and by inaction of the defendant or his successor solicitors, and there was no credible causal link that the plaintiff's conduct caused the dismissal of the underlying action; accordingly the counterclaim was struck out.
19 Nov 2004
Court held that where documents sought relate to former subsidiaries which are not parties, those entities must be joined as respondents in the absence of exceptional circumstances; granted leave to amend summonses to join three former subsidiaries, adjourned for service and directed production/consent procedure; awarded wasted costs and resolved overall costs liability accordingly.
15 Aug 2001
The court found the parties failed to follow mandatory procedural rules (notably Order 28 rule 1A) and that factual issues (eg alleged termination of retainer) must be clearly framed by affidavit evidence before ordering inspection; therefore it was not the proper time to order discovery and the contested summonses were dismissed while time to file affidavits was extended.
10 Jan 2001
Because the deputy judge ruled on 21 and reiterated on 26 July 2000 that the applicant could not exercise a lien or set-off against the interpleaded fund and the applicant did not appeal, those rulings are binding; the court therefore had jurisdiction under Order 45 r.6 to grant an order extending time and to require the applicant to pay the net balance (HK$254,355.70) to the 1st Claimant within 14 days and to deliver a cheque for accrued interest by the specified deadline.
26 Jul 2000
The fund was settled for specified purposes and remains trust property; the applicant-solicitor cannot apply set-off or a solicitor's lien to the fund or to the portion apportioned to the 1st Claimant unless the claimant consents or there is a court order sanctioning it; the interpleader order had finally apportioned and disposed of the fund so the court would not make the supplemental orders sought by the 1st Claimant beyond implementing the existing order.
25 Jun 1997
The court found special circumstances—cogent evidence of substantial overcharging (circa 35%) and lack of particularity in the bills—and an adequate reservation of rights in the Plaintiffs' letter; accordingly the discretionary power under s67(2) is properly exercised to order taxation and allow the appeal.
11 Aug 1986
The court exercised its discretion to refuse the s.70 charging order because the applicants had a contractual remedy against the debtor's family who possessed assets in Hong Kong, there was no evidence of an outright refusal by the family to pay, the applicants had not exhausted those remedies, and it would be manifestly unjust and unreasonable to allow a charge on the respondent before those avenues were pursued.
16 Oct 1985
Adjournment refused and defence and counterclaim struck out because the defendant repeatedly and inadequately explained failure to comply with multiple orders (discovery, inspection and payment of agreed costs), and the asserted solicitor's lien and belated offers were insufficient to justify continued non-compliance or further delay.