The Incorporated Owners of Champion Court v. Pang Ping Fan Peter and Another

HCMP 172/2010

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of appeal

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS no. 172 of 2010

(on aN INTENDED Appeal from CACV NO. 317 of 2006)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Hon Rogers VP

Date of Decision: 5 March 2010

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On this application for leave to appeal the defendants contended that the appeal relates to a contingency fee arrangement which breaches the “indemnity principle ”.

2.In the judgment below, the judge set out the history of the action and how it came before the Master.  Behind the complaint on behalf of the defendants was the concern that the litigation had proceeded without full authorisation from the Incorporated Owners, the plaintiff.  It was said that the only approval for engagement of the solicitors was limited to approval of a payment of fees limited to $25,000.

3.It can be understood that if a party only agreed to pay a limited amount to its solicitor, then no further amount would be payable.  An agreement to pay a further amount should that party be successful may involve questions of contingency fees.

4.That, however, is not the case here.  Although, a preliminary amount was sanctioned to be paid to the solicitors, the solicitors were engaged on the usual basis that they would be paid their usual fees.  Questions appear to have arisen as to whether the Incorporated Owners had properly instructed the solicitors.  In order to avoid any suggestion that the solicitors had acted without proper instructions a further resolution was passed.  That is not to say that the solicitors having acted on behalf of the Incorporated Owners and the Incorporated Owners having taken the benefit of the solicitors’ work, the Incorporated Owners were in a position to refuse to pay the proper fees of the solicitors.

5.In my view there has been no breach of the so termed “indemnity principle”.  It cannot be suggested that the solicitors were not acting on behalf of the Incorporated Owners and there is no ground for suggestion that the terms of engagement of the solicitors was on the basis that they would only charged $25,000.

6.I would therefore refuse leave to appeal.