Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Wong Kar Gee Mimi v Hogan Lovells

Judgment Cited authorities 4 Cited in 2 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date25 September 2012
Year2012
Citation[2012] 5 HKLRD 348
Judgement NumberHCMP1841/2011
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMP1841/2011 WONG KAR GEE MIMI v. HOGAN LOVELLS

HCMP1841/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1841 OF 2011

____________

IN THE MATTER OF the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159)
and
IN THE MATTER OF Order 106 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4)
and
IN THE MATTER OF Messrs. Hogan Lovells, Solicitors

____________

BETWEEN

WONG KAR GEE MIMI Plaintiff
AND
HOGAN LOVELLS (a firm) Defendant

____________

Coram: Master de Souza in Chambers (Open to the Public)

Dates of Hearing: 27 and 29 August 2012

Date of Judgment: 25 September 2012

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

I. INTRODUCTION

1. By originating summons dated 21 September 2011, Madam Wong Kar Gee Mimi (“the Plaintiff”) sought an order for taxation under the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) and Order 106 of the Rules of the High Court of all 10 bills of fees, charges and disbursements delivered to her by the Messrs. Hogan Lovells, her former solicitors (“the Defendant”). The bills rendered were for the period from 20 July 2010 to 28 March 2011.

2. The Plaintiff divorced her husband, Hung Kin Sang (“Mr. Hung”) in 1999. The decree absolute was granted in March 2010. By all accounts, it was an acrimonious parting.

3. Sometime prior to the engagement of the Defendant, the Plaintiff was at all material times a shareholder and director of Applied Development Holdings Ltd (“ADHL”), a Hong Kong listed company founded by her and Mr. Hung. Both were substantial shareholders and directors of ADHL.

4. During the divorce proceedings, each of them had leveled serious allegations of impropriety against the other on matters relating to ADHL. Being genuinely concerned and fearful that Mr. Hung was wrongfully maneuvering to strip her of her rights and entitlements as a director and shareholder of ADHL, Messrs Hampton Winter and Glynn her then solicitors seized of her ancillary relief application in the divorce proceedings, referred her to Christopher John Dobby, a partner in the Defendant (“Mr. Dobby”) for advice addressing her concerns on corporate issues. The Plaintiff met Mr. Dobby for the first time on 15 June 2010. 3 days later, the Plaintiff attended the Defendant’s office the 2nd time and signed the Engagement Letter (“the retainer”) formally engaging the Defendant as her corporate lawyers.

5. In the course of acting for the Plaintiff, the Defendant issued 10 bills, 7 of which the Plaintiff fully settled without demur or raising any query or issue as to quantum or the number of lawyers involved on her behalf within about a fortnight of their delivery. The last 3 bills, namely, 8, 9 and 10 in the aggregate sum of HK$1,809,925.57 remain outstanding. At the Plaintiff’s insistence, the Defendant agreed to discount bill no. 8.

6. It is the Plaintiff’s case that all 10 bills being interim bills should be construed as a single bill and taxation should be mandated given the lack of information on costing issues, failure to communicate adequately with her and the redolence of overcharging evident on the bills themselves. It was contended by the Plaintiff, inter alia, that the Plaintiff’s on-going skirmishes with Mr. Hung and ADHL continued through the delivery of the last bill and the interim bills at best represented partial payments of one single final bill to be delivered when the Defendant’s engagement ended. Even if the Defendant was entitled to deliver interim bills, the 7 settled bills ought to be construed as part of the final account which the Defendant would be entitled to deliver.

II. The Retainer

7. It is patent from the retainer under “Scope Of Instructions” that Mr. Dobby and the specialist corporate team within the Defendant working under his liaison were engaged by the Plaintiff to advise on her dispute with Mr. Hung and in respect of investigations relating to ADHL. It can accordingly be seen that the Defendant was not instructed to represent her on a single piece of litigation but to advise on a range of matters and issues.

8. Mr. Dobby was to and did have overall conduct of the matter with an assistant solicitor, Susan Yiu assisting him (“Miss Yiu”). Under the express terms of the retainer, Mr. Dobby was entitled to involve others of the Defendant’s lawyers with specialist skills where appropriate. He was to arrange internal co-ordination and consistency of approach.

9. As for the basis of charging, the retainer expressly stipulated that:

“We shall calculate our fees only by reference to the time spent…

Our current rate for partners is HK$6,400 an hour and other qualified lawyers are charged at rates between HK$3,700 and HK$5,200 an hour based on their seniority. Work done by trainee solicitors and researchers is charged at HK$2,450 an hour.”

10. Billing was in these terms:

“ Invoices will be submitted monthly.

Our invoices represent charges for the work we have done, and include disbursements and other expenses incurred, during the period covered by the invoice…”

11. Payment terms were specified as:

“9. Our invoices are due for payment within 14 days of the invoice date. If possible please pay them by bank transfer. Bank details appear on our invoices.

10. If an invoice remains unpaid for more than one month, or if you fail within two weeks to meet a request for payment on account of costs or disbursements (or both), we may decline to act any further. In that case, we shall charge you for the full amount of work done to that date.

We may charge interest on accounts which are overdue for more than one month. Interest is calculated at an annual rate equal to the rate for the time being applied to judgment debts.”

12. Pursuant to the retainer, the Defendant issued monthly invoices to the Plaintiff between 20 July 2010 and 28 March 2011.

13. The Plaintiff must have been aware of the terms of the retainer particularly the terms referred to above when she signed it. As an educated person conversant with corporate affairs and totally at ease in the English language, with her past and continuing experience of instructing solicitors and counsel on a number of occasions, she cannot but have been aware of the full terms and effect of the retainer in question.

14. The Defendant was contractually entitled to render separate monthly bills for settlement and expect to be paid within 14 days failing which interest would be chargeable. The narratives of the bills would have furnished details of the work done and by whom and of the disbursements incurred on the Plaintiff’s behalf.

15. The retainer clearly envisaged the use of other lawyers of the Defendant other than Mr. Dobby and Miss Yiu where necessary or appropriate. The Plaintiff was made so aware and had agreed to such division of labour when affixing her signature on the retainer. Even a cursory glance of the narratives of the bills she paid would have indicated the involvement of other lawyers.

16. The Plaintiff said Mr. Dobby had expressed on a number of occasions that the Defendant would be reluctant to instruct counsel on her behalf without payments on account. Accordingly, “much of the payments that I had made were of this nature, that is, advance deposits for counsel’s fees”. However, that simply does not accord with the details of the costs and disbursement thus far paid by her.

III. Were the 10 bills separate bills or bills constituting a series of bills?

17. Determination of this issue requires two questions to be affirmatively answered. The first question posed is whether the Defendant has the power to deliver each of the bills as a final bill (a mixed question of law and fact) and the second question, whether the individual bills delivered to the Plaintiff were delivered as separate final bills: Chin Yuk Lun & anr v Messrs Lo & Lo [2006] HKEC 1249.

18. As respect the first question, Deputy Judge A To (as he then was) in Chin Yuk Lun, supra, observed (at para. 10):

“ the approach nowadays is to look first at the retainer to see if the solicitor has the contractual right under the retainer to issue separate bills prior to conclusion of the matter for which he was retained.”

19. The retainer in question clearly and unambiguously conferred the right to issue and deliver monthly invoices to the Plaintiff by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Wong Kar Gee Mimi v K C Ho & Fong (A Firm)
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 20 May 2015
    ...is serious and which justifies not only an ordinary taxation but a special one.” 43. In Wong Kar Gee Mimi v Hogan Lovells (a firm) [2012] 5 HKLRD 348, Master de Souza held that what constitutes special circumstances would necessarily depend upon the facts of each case, and he identified a l......
  • Chen Ningning v King & Wood (A Firm)
    • Hong Kong
    • High Court (Hong Kong)
    • 21 March 2016
    ...circumstances which “is a stringent test requiring cogent evidence” (per Master de Souza in Wong Kar Gee Mimi v Hogan Lovells (a firm) [2012] 5 HKLRD 348 at para 28). The Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) (the”LPO”) has created various regimes for taxation of solicitor-and-client cost......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT