In Property Dynasty Limited v Han Kun Law Offices LLP [2026] 1 HKLRD 930, DHCJ Ng Jern-Fei KC dismissed the Defendants’ appeal against a Master’s decision granting the Plaintiff leave to amend its pleadings to advance common law claims for damages for wrongful and/or negligent billing of work.
The central issue was whether the proposed amendments were impermissible because they allegedly sought to circumvent Section 67 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (“LPO”). The Defendants argued that the new claims in contract and negligence were bound to fail as a matter of law and were, in substance, an attempt to obtain relief that should properly be pursued through taxation of solicitors’ bills. The judge rejected this contention, holding that Section 67 of the LPO does not expressly exclude common law claims by clients against solicitors and that the Defendants failed to demonstrate that the proposed causes of action were unarguable.
In relation to the quantification of damages, the Plaintiff proposed to assess loss by reference to the difference between what was billed and what should have been billed. The judge held that this the method of quantification did not deprive the claim of its character as a claim for damages arising from alleged breaches of implied contractual duties, duty of care and/or fiduciary duties. The judge also rejected the Defendants’ argument that allowing the amendments would cause prejudice by extinguishing a limitation defence under Section 67 of the LPO.
The Defendants were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, summarily assessed, with a certificate for two counsel.
Read the judgment here: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=174877&QS=%2B&TP=JU
Mr Bernard Man SC and Mr Justin Lam, instructed by Jones Day, acted for the Plaintiff.
