Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor-client retainer

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2025

GLADIUS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TANNER DE WITT (A firm)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5974
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2193/2024

Items 1-7 and 8-14 were held to have been created in the course of the retainers and for the plaintiffs' benefit (they appear on bills for HCA 971) and therefore belong to the plaintiffs and must be produced; Items 15, 16 and 18 related to counsel fees attributable to HCA 806 on the objective evidence and did not arise from the plaintiffs' retainers and need not be produced; defendant to produce ordered items within 28 days at no cost and no order as to costs of the originating summons.
25 Sept 2012

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HOGAN LOVELLS

Citation

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HOGAN LOVELLS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1841/2011

The retainer expressly authorised monthly self-contained invoices which were delivered and accepted by the plaintiff; no special circumstances were proven to justify taxation of paid bills more than 12 months old or paid bills 4–7; bill 8 was settled by a concluded agreement; bills 9 and 10 (unpaid) are ordered taxed provided their full amounts are paid into court within one month; defendant entitled to costs on party and party basis.
21 Aug 2009

GEORGE Y.C. MOK & CO. (a firm) v. TRADE ADVISERS CO LTD Defendant

Citation

GEORGE Y.C. MOK & CO. (a firm) v. TRADE ADVISERS CO LTD Defendant
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ18479/2001

On the facts the interim bills were not final but bills on account; the court accepts the plaintiff's evidence that the parties made an oral agreement on 9 February 2000 to charge on party-and-party basis and that agreement was valid and enforceable; defendant failed to prove invalidity (no lack of informed consent, no fatal conflict, no uncertainty, no contingency fee), therefore plaintiff entitled to recover HK$71,449.95 and defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
18 Jan 2008

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)

Citation

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP629/2007

The application for security for costs was dismissed because, although the plaintiff did not demonstrate a high degree of probability of success on the merits, the claim and the defendant's counterclaim are exact mirror images; ordering security would confer a tactical advantage by effectively treating the plaintiff as a defendant to the counterclaim while depriving the plaintiff of its procedural position, and therefore on the court's discretion it was just to refuse security.
26 Mar 2004

GENT-YEAR METAL FOUNDRY LTD v. CHAN, LEUNG & CHEUNG (a firm)

Citation

GENT-YEAR METAL FOUNDRY LTD v. CHAN, LEUNG & CHEUNG (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3610/2003

The court exercised its discretion under s.67(2) to order taxation because the plaintiff's decision to seek taxation was reasonable in the context of Law Society and Tribunal advice and because the Adjudicator had set aside his order nisi thereby removing prior findings; waiver, estoppel and res judicata did not bar taxation; the Small Claims Tribunal lacked the power to determine solicitor's remuneration, which is properly for taxation by taxing masters.

Hong Kong Case Law

GLADIUS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TANNER DE WITT (A firm)

WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HOGAN LOVELLS

GEORGE Y.C. MOK & CO. (a firm) v. TRADE ADVISERS CO LTD Defendant

WISON (SHANGHAI) CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CO LTD v. SIMMONS & SIMMONS (a firm)

GENT-YEAR METAL FOUNDRY LTD v. CHAN, LEUNG & CHEUNG (a firm)