Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor negligence

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2024

GAIN GLOBAL CORPORATION LTD v. FONGS (a firm)

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 894
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2964/2017

The court held the defendant's retainer imposed a duty to exercise reasonable skill in investigating title and preparing documents, not a duty to verify the borrower's identity or to guarantee against identity fraud; the court found the defendant advised obtaining an Immigration Department certificate, did not breach its limited duties, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim with costs.
20 Mar 2024

CHAN CHUNG SING v. CHAN ANDY YUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1582/2017

Relief from the dismissal imposed by the Unless Order was granted despite inordinate delay because the court found the majority of defaults occurred during a period when the plaintiff's solicitors were at fault, the dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct, the plaintiff's breaches were not shown to be intentional or contumelious, and on balance the prejudice to the defendants was manageable if substantial protective conditions were imposed; relief was therefore conditional on payment into court of specified sums and payment of indemnity costs and compliance with a tight timetable, wi…
25 Jul 2022

ASIA CAPITAL ADVANCE (HONG KONG) LTD 對 CHAMPION IN LTD 及另五人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 762
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4630/2017

Applying Order 2 r 5(1) factors and accepting the defendants' evidence that they were misled by their former solicitors' staff, noting the application was promptly made, the plaintiff's absence at the hearing and the similar outcome in a related matter, the court exercised its discretion to grant relief from the sanction, set aside the default judgment dated 28 October 2020 and remit costs to be paid by the first and second defendants (to be assessed if not agreed).
25 May 2020

MISSION MARKETING LTD v. CHAN YUET FOON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 910
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP258/2014

The court found the cockloft/false ceiling and the trench were unauthorized building works and there was a real risk of enforcement such that the Defendants could not give good title; Plaintiff was entitled to rescind the agreement and recover the deposit; the Third Party was not liable because the Defendants' loss would have occurred irrespective of any breach by the Third Party.
29 Mar 2019

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN, ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUNG

Citation

[2019] HKDC 435
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4453/2008

The court disallowed the proposed para 12A amendment because it introduced a new contention of solicitor negligence causally linked to non-completion that was unnecessary to the core dispute and risked complicating and prejudicing the retrial; amendments that created inconsistency were required to be withdrawn or edited and the re-amended defence was permitted only subject to concessions. Applications to file supplemental witness evidence and for further particulars were not finally disposed of but directed to be dealt with on a strict timetable (draft supplemental statement to be lodged for…
9 Jan 2019

BRIGHT GOLD LTD v. MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 54
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2194/2011

The court found that Centaline, via its agent Wong, repeatedly misrepresented the extent of the roof forming part of Duplex B and that Mega Well relied on that misrepresentation; Centaline acted as agent of Bright Gold for marketing and communicating roof information so Bright Gold is vicariously liable; Mega Well is entitled to rescind the PSPA and SPA and to damages in lieu (HK$3,050,000) as alternative; WKLL did not breach their duty of care and Mega Well's counterclaim against WKLL was dismissed.
9 Feb 2017

TIN WAN TUNG v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS

Citation

TIN WAN TUNG v. SHEA YING FAI t/a DAMIEN SHEA & CO, SOLICITORS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA376/2013

The stay was dismissed because there had been no significant change in circumstances since the court's case management directions of 1 September 2016, there was no appeal against that order, and granting a stay would create a real risk of duplicate witness examination, inconsistent factual findings, wasted costs and inefficient use of judicial resources.
22 Aug 2014

JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH, also known as YU CHUAN YIH AND OTHERS

Citation

JOSE MIRANDA DA COSTA JUNIOR AND ANOTHER v. LORENZO YIH, also known as YU CHUAN YIH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA156/2010

After weighing Order 2 rule 5 factors the court found MGHK's breach was caused by clear professional negligence compounded by lack of candour and misleading affidavits, that MGHK's and its lawyers' conduct and procedural gamesmanship and evidence of external control/funding by Lorenzo disentitled MGHK to relief, and accordingly dismissed the summons for relief from sanction with costs.
8 May 2014

MILLION HONOUR TRADING LTD v. MAK LAI HING DAISY AND ANOTHER

Citation

MILLION HONOUR TRADING LTD v. MAK LAI HING DAISY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1852/2009

The court held that (1) the Outstanding Documents were not necessary to prove good title to the Share where the register and share certificate established prima facie title, (2) there was no proved Extension Agreement, (3) time was of the essence and the defendants repudiated the Provisional Agreement by failing to complete on 14 August 2009, and (4) the firm was negligent for adopting an erroneous conveyancing approach, insisting on originals and failing to advise the clients of the real risk that its view was wrong; consequential relief follows as ordered.
11 Apr 2014

WONG SIU MING JASON v. CHUNG MAN WAI REBECCA

Citation

WONG SIU MING JASON v. CHUNG MAN WAI REBECCA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV237/2012

The Court dismissed the appeal; the trial judge was entitled to reject the plaintiff's account as inherently implausible and find the defendant's account credible; the plaintiff failed to prove he gave the alleged instructions or that any omission by the defendant caused his loss, so the negligence claim failed.