Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor misconduct

Legal area

Court

21 Mar 2025

曹連英對禤氏律師行

Citation

[2025] HKDC 481
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4635/2023

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the alleged non‑service and procedural unfairness were not supported by the record, the allegations of solicitor misconduct were unsupported by evidence considered in the earlier judgment, and the settlement occurred with the applicant's consent; accordingly there was no justification to grant an oral hearing under s63A.
14 Oct 2022

SHAHID MUHAMMAD v. THE KOWLOON MOTOR BUS CO (1933) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1122
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI527/2020

The claim was dismissed because objective CCTV evidence conclusively disproved the plaintiff’s pleaded account (no sudden braking and plaintiff slipped through his own inattention), the plaintiff failed to attend to prove his case and produced unconvincing sick leave evidence, and the solicitors acted improperly including directing the freelance interpreter not to attend contrary to court directions; these factors justified dismissal and an indemnity costs order against the plaintiff with a show‑cause direction to the principal solicitor to be personally liable for wasted costs.
30 Sept 2020

KAUR PARAMJIT v. LI ON NA t/a 新長發快餐 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 858
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1479/2012

Although the former solicitors failed to make reasonable inquiries and thereby caused additional costs by suing the wrong party, the court was not satisfied on the summary show‑cause material that their conduct reached the level of gross neglect or misconduct necessary to justify a wasted costs order; accordingly the application for a wasted costs order was dismissed.
29 Sept 2017

LIU GUILIN v. HONG KONG SUNWARD FISHERY RESTAURANT MANAGEMNET CO LTD

Citation

LIU GUILIN v. HONG KONG SUNWARD FISHERY RESTAURANT MANAGEMNET CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2397/2016

The solicitors' unexplained failure to obtain and disclose the QMH and outpatient clinic records, their non‑compliance with directions and repeated ignoring of requests caused significant delay and wasted costs; accordingly the court ordered specific disclosure and case management steps and required the applicant's solicitors personally to bear the costs of the hearing on an indemnity basis.
30 Jun 2016

LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LINK FISH IMPORT & EXPORT S.L. v. MULTIPLY IMPORT & EXPORT HK LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP331/2016

The court found that Fung & Fung improperly put the 2nd defendant's summons and supporting affirmations into the hearing bundles as if listed, concealed the existence of the consent summons and consent order adjourning that summons, and instructed counsel to prepare extensive submissions to argue discharge; those acts amounted to misconduct causing the plaintiff to incur costs which constituted 'wasted costs' under the governing provisions.
25 Nov 2014

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. IP HON MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. IP HON MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR3/2014

The District Court judge erred in approach and principle by addressing suspension before fixing the appropriate custodial sentence and by misappreciating culpability (notably the 2nd respondent's concealment and fraudulent conduct); sentences were therefore quashed and replaced with higher custodial terms after applying starting points, limited discounts for character and trial conduct, and a further global discount for increase on review.
23 Jul 2013

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET AND OTHERS

Citation

SUM CHEUNG WAI v. TSUI HIN YUET AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1707/2010

The Court accepted the Applicant's evidence as credible and rejected the 1st Respondent's; on the balance of probabilities the parties agreed in or about March 2004 to pass ownership to the Applicant, and therefore the Register of Members must be rectified under section 100 to record the Applicant as sole holder of the 10,000 issued shares from 1 April 2004; the filings of 15 September 2010 are invalid.
20 Dec 2010

LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KWAI KIU v. BIAN XINTIAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP344/2009

The court found that the defendants and their solicitors failed to produce an unfavourable Lands Department Reply and provided no credible explanation; that failure was an unreasonable omission by the solicitors that caused the plaintiff to incur wasted costs; accordingly it was just to make a wasted costs order against T.C. Lau & Co. and their handling solicitor Mr Gabriel H.T. Leung-Jackson-Lipkin and to award indemnity costs to the plaintiff, including costs of the application on an indemnity basis.
29 Oct 2010

CHAN WAI TUNG v. TANG KWOK KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN WAI TUNG v. TANG KWOK KWONG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1503/2007

At the first stage the court found there was material upon which a Wasted Costs Order could potentially be made because the pleas against KW appeared to lack any factual basis and thereby misled the court; however at the second stage the court declined to make a Wasted Costs Order because the plaintiff refused to waive legal professional privilege and, given the penal nature of such orders and the requirement to give benefit of the doubt to legal advisers where privilege restricts disclosure, the judge was not satisfied it was fair to make the order; instead each party to the application was…
23 Jan 2009

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

A SOLICITOR v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/2008

The tribunal did not err as a matter of law in its reasons; on the evidence it was open to conclude the appellant inadequately supervised the fourth respondent and wrongly permitted non‑solicitor verification of signatures without establishing impracticability, and the deterrent fine and costs order were within the tribunal's disciplinary remit and not disproportionate.