Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor duty of care

Legal area

Court

31 Jan 2023

LEE PO CHU FEONA v. JOYCE CHAN & CO. (a firm)

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2421/2016

Court preferred the defendant's contemporaneous attendance notes and evidence, concluded the solicitors did not breach the standard duty of care owed to the purchaser, found no unequivocal guarantee by the solicitors that the vendor would produce documents or that time would be of the essence, and held the plaintiff failed to prove she would have validly terminated and avoided the loss; accordingly the claim failed.
29 Jun 2018

TSE CHI SHING v. TANG WING HONG ANDREW AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1846/2015

Defendant breached the duty to advise a purchaser adequately about the non-transferable personal nature of the government land licence and the substantial risk of enforcement by government; plaintiff relied on defendant's advice and would not have proceeded; recoverable loss limited by contractual remoteness and mitigation principles and reduced to proved renovation and related sums totalling HK$1,287,050 plus interest and costs nisi.
16 May 2012

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 First Instance
Case number

HCA506/2009

Woo owed the plaintiffs a duty of care as their solicitor in relation to their intended purchase; he breached that duty by failing to explain and warn the plaintiffs about the legal effect and risks of the will/power of attorney arrangement and by failing to take steps to protect or register their interest; that breach caused the foreseeable loss (purchase price, fees and costs) and plaintiffs are entitled to damages.
17 Feb 2011

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. ROBERT W.H. WANG & CO

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. ROBERT W.H. WANG & CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3575/2003

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the husband was the beneficial owner of the borrower but the wife and son were not subjected to undue influence, they understood the nature and effect of the Guarantee and the solicitor (Mr Pang) had explained the documents and invited independent advice; there was no misrepresentation by the solicitor and no solicitor negligence, therefore the Guarantee stood and judgment for the bank was entered for HK$23,175,752.26 against the wife and son.
4 Jul 2006

YAU CHUNG FAT JEFREY v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YAU CHUNG FAT JEFREY v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4614/2003

The court refused the solicitor defendants' applications for trial of the preliminary issue in HCA 4610 and HCA 4737 and dismissed the applications to stay the other related proceedings because splitting the trial would not be just and convenient: the time estimates, need for common evidence and discovery, risk of escalated costs, delay, appeals and prejudice to fair trial outweighed any convenience. The court also allowed TSW's strike-out application against the plaintiffs' claims on the basis they disclosed no reasonable cause of action (subject to appeal). Directions and costs issues were…
4 Jul 2006

KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KAM HUNG WAN WINNIE v. TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4655/2003

The court refused the solicitors' applications for a separate preliminary trial and refused stays because splitting the trial was not just and convenient: it would cause delay, increased costs, risk prejudice to fair trial (faded memories, lost witnesses), duplicative appeals and stress to parties. The court allowed the developer's strike-out application against the purchasers (pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action) and directed a further directions hearing and costs to be dealt with at that hearing.
11 Apr 2003

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHAN CHI YIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV9/2002

The Court held Yuen Sung & Co. breached their duty to advise vulnerable unit holders and are liable, but the correct basis for assessing loss is the market value of the old units at the dates of assignment as evidenced by the agreed valuation tendered at trial; the Court of Appeal erred in measuring loss by reference to contract/option prices or a developer aggregation value. The Court set aside the Court of Appeal's order and remitted the assessment on the basis indicated by the trial judge and this judgment, while affirming that indemnity for reasonable mitigation steps (including attempts…
7 Sept 1990

CARRIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. DEACONS (a firm)

Citation

CARRIAN INVESTMENTS LTD v. DEACONS (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV126/1990

The Court upheld the trial judge's discretion: the Amended Particulars legitimately raised a concrete issue whether Deacons negligently failed to warn CIL of foreseeable legal and market consequences and were not merely hypothetical, and the claim to recover fees attributable to the Wimbush scheme could not be struck out because it formed part of the negligent advice claim and might result in refund if the work was found fruitless.