Tsai Chih Hsiang and Another v. Victor George Tung, Jimmy Ng & Valent Tse (A Firm)
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 1479/2002 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 16 December 2005.
1. The parties in the Original Action will be referred to as follows:
Cites 1 case
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1479 OF 2002 ____________________ BETWEEN
____________________ AND BETWEEN
Coram: Deputy District Judge E. Yip in Court Date of Hearing: 21- 25 November 2005 Date of Judgment: 16 December 2005 _________________ JUDGMENT __________________ The References to the parties 1.The parties in the Original Action will be referred to as follows:
2.The parties in the Counterclaim will be referred to as follows:
The References to the documents 3.The documents will be referred to as follows:
The plaintiffs’ (Tsai and Huang’s) case in the Original Action 4.The plaintiffs deposited US$50,000 with the defendant, a solicitors’ firm. The defendant was to stakehold the money. The defendant released the money to Poon Kan Joe (“Poon”, the 2nd defendant in the defendant’s Counterclaim) without the plaintiffs’ authorization. The plaintiffs now claim the return of the money. The defendant’s (the Firm’s) case in the Original Action 5.The Firm was orally authorized by the plaintiffs to release the money to Poon. The plaintiff’s (Tse’s) case in the Counterclaim 6.The Firm was orally authorized by the plaintiffs to release the money to Poon. The Firm claims costs and damage to reputation as a result of the Law Society’s disciplinary hearing and the present action. The 1st defendant’s (Tsai’s) case in the Counterclaim 7.The 1st defendant did not authorize, orally or otherwise, the Firm to release the money to Poon. The 2nd defendant’s (Poon’s) case 8.Poon is absent throughout the proceedings. Tsai and Huang’s evidence in the Original Action Tsai’s evidence 9.Tsai gives evidence. He was the director and shareholder of Fu Long Limited (“Fu Long”). 10.On 4 December 2000, Tsai procured Kingdom Limited (“Kingdom”) to acquire a letter of credit in favour of a company in Taiwan (“Yu Wo Company”). Chan Wan Shu was its chairman. Tsai signed a letter of authorization to release the money to Kingdom. The Firm’s evidence in the Original Action Tse’ evidence 11.Tse gives evidence. He handled all matters relating to the present case on behalf of the Firm. He first came to know the proprietor, Mr. Choi, of Kingdom, as his client in some court cases beforehand. In 2000, Choi introduced Poon to Tse. In November 2000, Poon introduced Tsai to Tse. Poon claimed to be an agent for arranging letters of credit in the PRC. Tsai claimed to be an agent for arranging letters of credit for Chan Wen Shu’s Yu Wo Company. 12.On 4 December 2000, Yu Wo Company deposited US$120,000 into the Firm’s account. On 6 December 2000, Poon and Tsai deposited another US$30,000 cash. The Firms stakeheld both sums pending Tsai’s instructions (on behalf of Fu Long) to release them upon a letter of credit in favour of Yu Wo Company being opened. Later, on the same date, Tsai signed an Authorization Letter to instruct the Firm to release the 2 said sums to Kingdom. 13.On the morning of 16 March 2001, Tsai introduced a lady called Chuang Wen Hua (“Chuang”) and a gentleman called Chen Wang Chuan (“Chen Wang Chuan”) to Tse in the Firm. Tsai told Tse that Chuang would provide US$150,000 to finance Fu Long’s business operation. Chuang would get a double of this amount after 40 bank working days as a reward. Tse produced a contract (“the Contract”, [BD 29-30]) allegedly drafted by Chen Wang Chuan. Chuang and Tsai then signed the Contract. Tse also signed as a witnessing party and stakeholder of Chuang’s and Tsai’s respective monies. Tsai and Chuang would give instructions to Tse to release the sums when the bank for Kingdom (“the Deutsche Bank”) issued the Pay Order. Tsai did not give Tse any contact information of Chuang. 14.On 19 March 2001, Tsai and Huang came to Tse’s office. Tsai introduced Huang as his kind-of partner in Fu Long. They told Tse that they would deposit US$50,000 cash the following day. This sum was to be provided, together with Chuang’s US$150,000, to Kingdom for Kingdom’s arrangement to have a letter of credit opened to finance Fu Long’s business operation. Tse would have to stakehold this sum. 15.On the morning of 20 March 2001, Tsai came to Tse’s office with HK$389,300 (the equivalent of US$50,000) cash. Tse issued a Safekeeping Receipt (BD 37) to Tsai. 16.On the afternoon of the same date, Tsai and Poon returned to Tse’s office. They told him that the Deutsche Bank had already issued the Pay Order to Kingdom. They did not show it to Tse. Tsai instructed Tse to release the money (US$200,000) to Kingdom immediately or else the transaction would fail. Tse requested Tsai to sign an Authorization Letter. Tse requested Tsai to provide Chuang’s Authorization Letter as well. Tsai told Tse that Chuang was in Taiwan. As the matter came up so suddenly, Tse had not yet prepared the Authorization Letters for each of Tsai and Chuang to sign. Tse asked for 1 to 2 days to prepare them and fax to Chuang. Chuang could courier her signed Authorization Letter back. Tsai blamed Tse for not having advised them in advance. Tsai insisted on Tse at least releasing Tsai’s own US$50,000, still in cash. Tsai promised to get Chuang to sign her Authorization Letter for Chuang’s own US$150,000 as soon as possible. In reliance on the oral instruction given by Tsai, Tse agreed to release US$50,000 to Kingdom. Poon requested Tse to pass the sum to him (“Poon”). In the presence of both Tsai and Poon, Tse phoned Choi of Kingdom. Choi allowed Tse to do so. In the presence of Tsai, Tse passed the HK$389,000 cash to Poon. To Tse’s surprise, Poon counted out HK$127,000 to Tsai, who gave Poon a receipt [BD 41]. 17.On 21 March 2001, Tse phoned Poon. Poon told Tse not to bother with the Deutsche Bank Pay Order because the bank had already opened the letter of credit. 18.On 22 March 2001, Tse faxed to Poon an Authorization Letter for Tsai to sign and another one for Chuang to sign. It had to be through Poon because Tse did not have either Tsai or Chuang’s fax number. The latest fax number Tse had of Tsai was only of a hotel room some months ago. A lady who claimed to be and spoke like Chuang phoned Tse and promised Tse that she would sign it and fax and courier back to Tse. She further instructed Tse not to bother with the Deutsche Bank Pay Order. 19.On 23 March 2001, Tse received a faxed Authorization Letter bearing Tsai’s signature [BD 58] and another one bearing Chuang’s signature [BD 59]. Poon phoned Tse. Tse asked Poon to provide the originals of the 2 Authorization Letters immediately. Poon promised to do so. Tse checked Chuang’s signature on the Authorization Letter against her signature on the Contract. Tse was satisfied that it was the same. In reliance on the said faxed Authorization Letter, Tse issued a cheque for US$150,000 in favour of Kingdom. 20.A few days later, Tse asked Poon for the originals of the Authorization Letters. Poon eased Tse’s mind by giving Tse the original of the receipt for HK$127,000 issued on 20 March 2001 by Tsai. 21.On 30 March 2001, Tsai and Huang came to Tse’ office and told Tse that the letter of credit could not be utilized. Tse produced the faxed Authorization Letter bearing Tsai’s signature [BD 59] and asked Tsai for its original. Tsai could not produce it but promised to provide later. Neither Tsai nor Huang demanded for the return of the money. DW1 Chan Wan Biu’s evidence 22.Mr. Chan Wan Biu was the brother of Chan Wan Shu (the chairman of Yu Wo). On 20 March 2001, he came from Taiwan to sign a document (unrelated to the present action) with Tsai in Tse’s office. At around 3.15 p.m. he met up with Tsai and a Mr. Zhao for snack at a restaurant in Worldwide Centre, Central. The trio arrived in Tse’s office at around 3.45 p.m. Tsai and he signed the document. Tsai and he were in Tse’s office from 3.45 p.m. to 4.15 p.m. DW2 George Tung’s evidence 23.He was throughout a partner of the defendant. He disputes Tsai’s statement [WS 7] dated 20 February 2003, which mentioned that he had met and told Tsai the defendant would give a date of repayment. The truth was that up to May 2001, he had never met, known, or talked to, Tsai. This Court’s findings On Tsai’s evidence 24.The handwriting expert, Shum Lau, wrote a report on 15 July 2003 [BD 1-13]. Its findings included that Tsai’s signature for and on behalf of Fu Long on the questionable Authorization Letter was forged by cut-and-paste based on Tsai’s original set of the Contract dated 16 March 2001. The same applied to Chuang’s signature on the other questionable Authorization Letter. Tsai knew of Shum Lau’s report later through from his (Tsai’s) own solicitors. 25.I understand that although Tse was also in possession of other documents with Tsai’s signatures, those signatures were Tsai’s in his own capacity and in a different style altogether from the one on the Agreement. But how did Tse get hold of the template of Tsai’s signature for and on behalf of Fu Long? 26.At that stage Tsai had already reported to the police and the Law Society. He could not back out. His 1st statement did not mentioned anything but his 2nd statement, dated 12 April 2003, mentioned that neither Tse, Chuang nor he himself had made any copies of the Contract because the originals were in triplicate and each party simply signed all 3 and retained 1 [WS 80 para. 3]. It is obvious that Tsai had to find a way out or he himself would become the prime suspect of the forgery. 27.On 19 November 2004, Tsai made his 3rd statement. He stated that he “now” recalled that after he (Tsai) signed the Contract in triplicate, Tse took the 3 originals away for making copies. He explained that in the 2nd statement, he had intended to state that only Chuang and he himself did not make any copies; he meant he had not expressly stated then that Tse had made copies because he misunderstood that part of his 2nd statement when the solicitor interpreted it to him. 28.In fact, Tsai had given 2 other versions of the same events elsewhere. During cross-examination on 21 November 2005, he says that after making copies Tse returned with 1 original set to Chuang and 1 original set to him (Tse). He saw Tse retain 1 original set and 1 photocopy set to himself (i.e., Tse). Later, during cross-examination on the same date, he says that throughout his stay in Tse’s office, he had not seen what papers Chuang and Tse were holding upon Tse’s return. He says that it might be that Chuang and Tse had got some other unrelated documents or even blank sheets of paper upon Tse’s return. 29.Quite apart from such inconsistencies of Tsai’s evidence, I do not see any good reason why, if Tse were to forge a document, Tse did not not cut and paste from his own original set instead of a photocopy set of Tsai’s. Besides, there could be no good reason why Tse wanted to be seen keeping a photocopy set of Tsai’s original. I reject this line of argument. I find Tsai’s evidence that Tse had made or held photocopies of Tsai’s Contract incredible. 30.He says that on 25 April 2001, Chuang phoned him. She suspected Tse of forging her signature on an Authorization Letter to release her US$150,000. On 26 April 2001, Chuang got Chen Wang Chuan to fax him the allegedly forged document. He decided to sue Tse if Tse could not repay within 1 week. On 4 May 2001, when he confronted Tse face to face, Tse was meek but was unwilling to shoulder up responsibilities. He felt cheated by Tse and left in a rage. He then waited for Chuang to come to Hong Kong. He reported to the ICAC on 25 May 2001 and the police on 30 May 2001. I do not see any good reason why he had to wait for Chuang. He could make a report of being cheated US$50,000 on 4 May 2001. I find his evidence incredible. 31.His evidence is that on 20 March 2001 Poon was not in Tse’s office. On his way to Lowu, Poon phoned him to arrange for a meet-up so that Poon would repay US$15,000 owed by Poon to him. He was in need of money. He went back to meet Poon at Kowloon Tong KCR Station. The allegation of Poon’s absence contradicts his 3rd statement, which mentioned that Poon was also present [para. 8 WS 103]. The allegation of Poon’s repayment of a loan contradicts his 3rd statement, which mentioned that Poon was repaying the loan only for and on behalf of Chan Wan Shu [para. 9 WS 103]. During re-examination, he first says that the sum was owed by Chan Wen Shu. He then changes to say that it was owed by Poon and had nothing to do with Chan. I find his evidence incredible. 32.His repeated evidence is that he could not communicate with Tse at all because Tse could not speak Mandarin. On 4 May 2001 he went to confront Tse at Tse’s office because of Tse’s unauthorized release of his money. Later, when asked how he communicated with Tse on that occasion, he says that he had not counted in his interpreter, Mr. Lei because Mr. Lei was unrelated to the matter. I find his evidence incredible. 33.His evidence is that on and before 20 March 2001 he did not trust Poon at all. At Kowloon Tong KCR Station, Poon handed him the alleged cash of HK$127,000 in an envelope. He did not count the money except the loose part of HK$1,700 before he left, because there were too many people around. He later changes to say that he had checked the bank chops on the bands used by the bank to tie each wad of banknotes. As he had worked in a bank in Taiwan for some years, he could tell without counting how many and what Hong Kong banknotes were in each wad simply by looking at the side of the wads shown at the opening of the envelope. He therefore knew that Poon had given him the exact sum of HK$127,000 in all. I find his evidence incredible. 34.His evidence is that after a heated argument he got HK$10,000 extra for travel and travel-related expenses apart from the HK$117,000. He left in a rage with HK$127,000. On the train for Lowu, he received Poon’s call. Poon asked him to go back to sign a receipt for Poon. I do not see any good reason why he did not dictate Poon a location and a time and date at his own pleasure and convenience but went back to see Poon. After all, he had already got his money. Poon should not have enraged him and then come back for his indulgence. I find his evidence incredible. 35.I do not find him a credible witness. I reject his evidence on all facts in issue. The plaintiff’s final submissions
36.Mr. Kwong has spent considerable time seeking to advance his focal point that being a solicitor, Tse had to understand and implement the terms of the documents (as listed hereinbelow). Tse retorts that no one had retained him, promised or actually paid him for any legal professional service up to 20 March 2001 (save Tsai’s indefinite representation, on a much later date, of payment to be made upon completion of the transaction, which never materialized). He had not taken part in, advising or creating these documents, either. He did not think much about or know of the relationship between the various parties. He signed expressly as a witness and his role was a stakeholder. Those documents are:
37.Mr, Kwong argues [PFS para. 10-17] that Tse released money without regard to the terms of these documents. Tse says he would release Tsai’s money (US$50,000) to Tsai’s order because this part was Tsai’s own money, and release Chuang’s money (US$150,000) to Chuang’s order because that part was Chuang’s own money. On 20 March 2001, Tse released the money to Tsai’s order because Tsai gave him oral instruction to do so. Mr. Kwong submits that it was a wrong approach because Tse had to, as stipulated in the Contract [BD 29-30] amongst other documents, verify a Pay Order from Kingdom, before releasing the money. I disagree with this submission. There was nothing more practical than Tse’s asking Tsai what to do with Tsai’s own money. I agree with Mr. Chan’s submission [DFS 3 para. 2] to the same effect, and using my own words here, that Mr. Kwong’s efforts were mis-focused and his arguments along this line a red herring. Attacking Tse’s credibility and reliability 38.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 18] that as a first version, Tse stated (in a letter dated 4 July 2001 to the Law Society [WS 97 last para.]; in the (sic) Amended Defence and Counterclaim dated (sic) 22 August 2003 [BP 23 para. 6(ii)(a)]; in his 1st Statement, dated 21 February 2003 [WS 70 para. 11]) that Tsai and Poon told him that they had just received the Pay Order from Kingdom. As a second version, Tse stated (in his statement to the Law Society [BD 143 para. 12 (sic)(2)]) that they told him Kingdom was about to send Tsai the Pay Order. As a third version, Tse stated (in his 2nd statement, dated 27 May 2005 [WS 152 para. 26(1)]) that they told him Kingdom had already issued the letter of credit. 39.I can see no contradiction in these versions. Tse cannot tell more than he heard from Tsai and Poon. Depending on the trust between the parties, a letter of credit might be opened before the financing party got the original or even a photocopy of the Pay Order. It is not clear whether Tsai was referring to an original or a photocopy that was to be sent over to him (Tsai). 40.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 26-28] that Tse did not mention (in his letter dated 4 July 2001 to the Law Society [BD 97]) the release of US$50,000 (or its equivalent of HK$389,300) and Poon’s handover of HK$127,000 to Tsai. However, Tse had mentioned these before (in his 2nd statement, dated 27 May 2005 [WS 153 para. 26(11)(e)]). I think it is clear that Tse was only talking about Chuang’s US$150,000, not Tsai’s US$D50,000 at all. Attacking Tse’s release of money solely on Tsai’s oral instruction 41.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 19-25] that Tse was not prudent in relying solely on Tsai’s oral instruction on 20 March 2001. Mr. Chan submits [DFS Schd. A, para. 4(4)] that Tse had previous experience with Tsai in the Yu Wo transaction. So Tse trusted Tsai. I agree that Tse had a reason to trust Tsai and rely on Tsai’s oral instruction in an urgent matter which Tsai purported, and Tse believed Tsai, to be in. 42.Mr. Kwong also submits [PFS para. 22.1-22.3] that Tse never mentioned in any of his statements that the contents of the 2 Authorization Letters originated from Poon. Tse was not retained for any legal professional service. He was not responsible for suggesting any contents. Tse did not touch on the subject of who supplied the contents for his drafting, either. Attacking Tse’s failure to allege Tsai’s oral instruction soon enough 43.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 29-31] that Tse (in Tse’s letter dated 8 November 2001, [BD 106]) did not allege Tsai’s oral instruction to release Tsai’s US$50,000 in response to Tsai and Huang’s solicitors’ letter demanding the return of US$200,000. Tse’s evidence is that his first query was about Chuang’s US$150,000 (out of the US$200,000) to them (Tsai and Huang). Tse’s letter therefore asked them to first clarify their locus standi in respect of Chuang’s money. I agree with Tse’s view.
44.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 33-38] that there was no reason for Tse to be surprised by Poon’s counting and handover of HK$127,000 to Tsai in Tse’ office on 20 March 2001. So Tse’s evidence should not be accepted. I do not agree. Mr. Kwong himself refers to Tse’s subsequent knowledge (on 22 March 2001) that such money was Tsai’s commission from Kingdom in this transaction. I think this in itself provides an answer to Mr. Kwong’s submission. As at 20 March 2001, Tse could have had no idea that Poon was counting and handing over Tsai’s commission money. I regard it natural for Tse to be surprised by Tsai’s receiving money from Poon. Attacking Tse’s reference to Pay Order in the 2 Authorization Letters 45.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 39-42] that Tse had no reason to refer to the Pay Order in the 2 Authorization Letters drafted for Tsai and Chuang to sign. It is because, as Tse says (in his 2nd statement, dated 27 May 2005 [WS 154 para. 28]), Poon told him (Tse) that the letter of credit had been issued and there was no need to deal with the Pay Order. Tse explains in Court that Poon had supplied the contents for his (Tse’s) drafting. If Poon chose to refer to the Pay Order, Tse would write it down in the draft. I accept Tse’ explanation. Tse was only a witness and stakeholder. The monies belonged to Tsai and Chuang respectively. Poon acted for Tsai and Chuang. If they were content with the draft, they would sign. If they were not, they would not sign. Poon or they could always tell him how to draft or amend it. Attacking Tse’s way of mentioning the release of Chuang’s money 46.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 55-59] that Tse gave a simplistic mention of the release, on 23 March 2001, of Chuang’s US$150,000 to Kingdom in a statement (his 2nd statement, dated 27 May 2005 [WS 155 para. 34]) but a detailed mention of the same matter elsewhere (his statement to the Law Society, dated 25 April 2005 [BD 146 para. 18]). This shows that Tse was not telling the whole truth. I do not agree. Tse’s statement to the Law Society focused on Chuang’s US$150,000 whereas Tse’s statement for this trial on Tsai’s US$50,000. My findings On Tse’s evidence 47.Mr. Kwong refers at great length to 3 contractual documents. The first is the Letter of Credit Agreement (“the L/C Agreement”, [BD 43-45]) in draft between Fu Long and Kingdom. The second is the Contract between Tsai, Chuang with Tse as a witness and stakeholder [BD 29-30]. The third is the Safekeeping Receipt [BD 37] for Poon’s receipt of $389,300 from Choi, with Poon guaranteeing that Chan Man Shu and Tsai would sign an undertaking confirmation letter and that Poon would give to the defendant a pay order; if the said conditions in the Safekeeping Receipt could not be fulfilled, Poon would return $389,300 to Choi. 48.Mr. Kwong argues that as a witness to the Contract [BD 29-30], which refers to the “L/C Agreement” [BD 43-45], Tse had to follow the terms of the L/C Agreement. Tse should have asked more and understood more from Tsai. Tse’s stance was that he (Tse) did not prepare or understand the contents of the Agreement, or know of the contents of the L/C Agreement. Before he signed, he had told Tsai that he (Tse) did not understand the terms of the Contract or the underlying transactions. He understood that his role was only to assist the parties gratuitously and in a very limited scope. Tsai had not retained his legal professional service, or promised to pay him. He anticipated that when the time came for the money to be released under the Contract, he would seek the authorization of Tsai and Chuang because Tsai and Chuang had put up the money. I think Tse was perfectly entitled to take that straightforward stance. 49.Mr. Kwong criticizes Tse for not getting Tsai to immediately sign a written authorization to release the HK$389,300 cash on 20 March 2001. Tse replies that he trusted Tsai because he had known Tsai and handled Tsai’s matters on previous occasions. He therefore relied on Tsai’s oral instruction to release the money to Kingdom’s order and, after checking with Choi over the phone in the presence of Tsai, eventually to Poon. I do not think Tse was wise to release money based merely on Tsai’s oral instruction. Be that as it may, I find as a fact that Tsai had given him clear oral instruction to release the money in the way he did. 50.I find Tse a credible and reliable witness. On Chan Wan Biu’s evidence 51.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 61-63] that Chan Wan Biu could not possibly remember the event of meeting Tsai 4 years ago, let alone the precise time and location. I do not agree. His meeting with Tsai was related to an important agreement he had to come over from Taiwan specifically to sign. I accept his evidence to be credible and reliable. On George Tung’s evidence 52.Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 64-66] that Tung could not possibly remember the event of meeting Tsai 4 years ago. I do not agree. George could distinctly remember that he had never promised to repay such money to anyone or Tsai. I accept his evidence to be credible and reliable. Other submissions
53.With the above findings, it is not necessary for me to deal with Mr. Chan’s submission [DFS para. 2] that Huang Lin Fa has not given any evidence in Court or any statement, nor has Tsai done so for and on Huang’s behalf. To counter this, Mr. Kwong submits [PFS para. 72-76] that this Court can admit any evidence which tends to make Tsai an agent for Huang in the present trial. Besides, Huang has answered the Interrogatories [WS 94-100; WS 132-138]. I need to make it clear that Huang did not answer in WS 94-100, although he did answer in WS 132-138. 54.If I have to deal with it, I will disagree with Mr. Chan’s submission. I notice that Tse accepted (in his statement to the Law Society, dated 25 April 2005 [BD 142 para. 9]; his 2nd statement, dated 27 May 2005 [WS 151 para. 22(1)]) that Tsai introduced Huang to him as a “quasi-partner”. Besides, the Firm (in the Amended Defence and Counterclaim, dated 22 August 2003 [BP 22 para. 6]):
The plural form “Plaintiffs” plainly included Huang. The case as found
55.On the aforesaid credible and reliable evidence, I find that Tse had released the money as orally instructed by Tsai on 20 March 2001, I dismiss Tsai’s and Huang’s whole claim in the Original Action.
56.In the Amended Defence and Counterclaim, the Firm pleaded:
57.I understand the Firm to be alleging to an oral representation by Tsai on 20 March 2003 to get Fu Long and Chuang to sign on the Authorization Letters as soon as Tse made the same available. The Firm seems to suggest that Tsai misrepresented to Tse so that Tse entered into an oral agreement; further or in the alternative, Tsai/or Poon also breached the oral agreement. The terms of the oral agreement were not pleaded. It was not clear what consideration was involved and what agreement it was. I dismiss the Firm’s prayer based on misrepresentation and breach of oral agreement. 58.I do not see what facts the Firm is drawing upon for the conspiracy involving Tsai and/or Poon. The terms of the conspiracy were not pleaded, nor were the roles of co-conspirators. I dismiss the Firm’s prayer based on conspiracy. 59.The Firm says that Tsai’s and/or Poon’s acts have resulted in Tse’s having to face the disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society. The Firm had to, but did not, plead what complaint the disciplinary proceedings was seeking to investigate. If any part of the complaint was related to the way Tse’s lack of prudence in processing the release of money, Tsai’s or Poon’s acts might not be relevant. 60.I dismiss the Firm’s whole Counterclaim. The costs 61.There is no apparent reason why costs should not follow the event. I make an order nisi for costs of the Original Action to be to the Firm with certificate for counsel whereas costs of the Counterclaim to be to Tse with certificate for counsel. Where not covered by previous orders, I apportion Original Action 90 %, and the Counterclaim 10 %, of the costs in the entire case. This order shall become absolute after 14 days from today. Dated this 16 December 2005
Mr. Paul Kwong instructed by M/s Lam and Partners, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs in Original Action & the 1st Defendant in Counterclaim Action Mr. Maurice Chan instructed by M/s George Tung, Jimmy Ng and Valent Tse, for the 1st Defendant in Original Action and Plaintiff in Counterclaim Action 2nd Defendant: Poon Kan Joe, in person, in Counterclaim Action |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 1479/2002