AU KWOK CHUEN VINCENT v. MESSRS ONC LAWYERS (A FIRM)

HCMP 1152/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1152 OF 2013

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. Having considered the evidence filed on behalf of the parties and heard the submissions made by both sides, I agree with the learned Master that the plaintiff’s claim of the existence of an agreement for the defendants’ fees to be capped at $200,000, inclusive of counsel’s fees, is improbable and unbelievable by virtue of his written Note to the defendants dated 4 December 2012. That Note records the plaintiff’s payment of $150,000 in partial settlement of the defendants’ bill dated 6 September 2012, and the plaintiff’s agreement to settle the balance of that bill and the other bills received by him from the defendants. For all the reasons set out in the decision of the Master, and in particular paragraphs 16, 18 and 19, which I adopt, the plaintiff’s claims are inconsistent, unreliable and are rejected.

2. I dismiss the plaintiff’s claims under the amended originating summons, for the defendants’ bills to be dismissed and for his alleged agreement with the defendants for the capping of the defendants’ fees to be enforced.

3. However, in respect of the Master’s order to enter judgment in favor of the defendants for the plaintiff’s payment of the sum of $345,360.50, I allow the plaintiff’s appeal and set that order aside.  The defendants’ claim is that the Note signed by the plaintiff and dated 4 December 2012 constitutes an agreement under s 58 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, in respect of the defendants’ remuneration for contentious business done by the solicitor for the client.  Under s 62 of the Ordinance, the costs of the solicitor where an agreement has been made pursuant to s 58 shall not be subject to taxation pursuant to s 67 of the Ordinance.  Under s 60(3) of the Ordinance, however, the amount payable under an agreement made under s 58 “shall not be received by the solicitor until the agreement has been examined and allowed by a taxing officer of the court”.  In view of the plaintiff’s claims of unreasonable amounts charged by the defendants, including the claim that the bill reflects court attendances by Mr Yiu when Mr Yiu admitted that he had not attended court, I will order that the agreement for payment of the sum of $345,360.50, as contained in the Note of 4 December 2012, be examined and allowed (if considered fit) by a taxing master in accordance with s 60(3) of the Ordinance.

4. In view of the orders I have made, the plaintiff is to pay 50% of the costs of the appeal and of the action (including the costs incurred below before the Master) to the defendants.