Property Dynasty Ltd v Han Kun Law Offices LLP 

[2025] HKCFI 5628, DHCJ Ng-Jern Fei KC dismissed the Defendants’ appeal against a Master’s decision to, among other things, grant the Plaintiff permission to amend its Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiff sought to amend its Statement of Claim to add further claims against the Defendants, their former solicitors, for breach of implied contractual duties and negligence, which were based on alleged negligent handling of previous proceedings and alleged overcharging. The Defendants contended that these claims would impermissibly circumvent the statutory provisions for taxation in s.67 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159).

 decision, DHCJ Ng Jern-Fei KC rejected the Defendants’ arguments, holding that:

(1) There was nothing express in the wording of s.67 which displaced the availability of common law claims by clients against solicitors.

(2) The fact that the Plaintiff claimed damages equivalent to the difference between what should have been billed and what was billed (i.e., to be assessed in a manner similar to taxation) did not mean such a method of quantification was bound to fail.

(3) The fact that the amendments would bypass the 12-month time limit for taxation proceedings under s.67 also did not result in any prejudice to the Defendants, as this remained a “live” issue which had been canvassed in earlier pleadings and on which the parties had joined issue.

 and Justin Lam, instructed by Jones Day, acted for the Plaintiff.

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Relationship between common law claims and s.67, LPO clarified

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New