4 Aug 2025
The Court exercised its discretion to reduce excessive and unjustified fee items and summarily assessed the total recoverable costs for the summons and hearing at HK$1,250,000, rejecting the claimant's total of HK$2,360,048 as excessive and re‑fixing individual items accordingly.
16 Nov 2012
The Court of Appeal held that s 67(2) authorises the court to impose terms (including interim payments) attached to an order for taxation regardless of which party applies, and that summary judgment for the solicitor was justified because the defendants' negligence/set‑off defence failed on the evidence: Mr Ho had represented and in substance exercised control over GHL through the trust and Baker & McKenzie acted on clear instructions and available material, so no reasonable basis existed to withhold payment of the solicitor's bills.
26 May 2011
The renewed application for stay of execution was dismissed because it was not an appeal within the meaning of Order 59 Rule 10(6), the defendants failed to demonstrate a meritorious appeal even with the newly disclosed evidence (a second post-trial disclosure), and the proper procedural remedy was an appeal against Kwan JA's decision rather than the renewed interlocutory application; costs were ordered on an indemnity basis and solicitor-client costs disallowed in Legal Aid taxation.
24 Nov 1998
The court held that while a client is entitled to sufficient particulars of a gross sum bill under section 63 without paying for them, a taxing master has discretion to require details in a taxation and to award the solicitor costs for preparing them in appropriate circumstances; masters must not routinely order full breakdowns but must specify the details required; on the facts the disallowance by Master Betts was reversed and the Defendant was, in principle, entitled to the costs of preparing formal bills.
14 Feb 1997
The Tribunal held the High Court proceedings were properly connected to the compensation claim and awarded the applicant its own solicitor-client costs in those proceedings (excluding party and party costs by consent); held that 24-hour fixed and call deposits qualify as time deposits for s.17(3A) purposes and the applicable lowest rate should be taken from a single bank's daily lowest rates rather than an artificial cross-bank average; because the Crown unreasonably delayed payment the Tribunal increased the lowest time deposit rate by 1% p.a. and fixed interest at 3.0627% for 10 Jul 1992–27…
14 Oct 1988
When the plaintiff partnership increased to more than 20 partners and failed to register as required by the Societies Ordinance it became an unlawful society; the provision of legal services was central to that unlawful existence so contracts for those services were illegal and unenforceable, therefore the plaintiff could not recover fees; additionally the defendant failed to prove any binding waiver of unbilled fees from the 9 July 1984 meeting.