lost or stolen from a ship
bound for Venezuela.
Intraluck (HK) Com- pany Ltd and Leck Kim
Koon named Foo and Li as
Defendant in High Court
Action Number 5597 of 1987
and claimed that the solici-
tors had been holding stock- holders' funds of
$HK319,423.50 without au- thority, and claimed imme- diate payment and a declara- tion from the Defendants.
In 1985, High Court Ac- tion Number 2855 named the Defendant as being C.D.Hampton Winter and Glynn, which was alleged to have deliberately delayed the proceedings of the Plaintiff's case for 5 years in an Action against the Mass Transit Railway Corpora-
The Supreme Court --
A home away from home for ...?
tion and had therefore allegedly caused losses to the Plaintiff, Mr A.B.Cheng Man, who claimed compensation of $HK100,000.
Cheng and Lam was sued once as Defendant in High Court Action Number 281 of 1985, along with Hastings and Company in a case relating to a property dispute in respect to land on Lantau Island.
C.C.Lee and Company was taken to task along with Philip K.H.Wong and Company when they were named as Defen- dants, along with 8 others, in the same action as Johnson Stokes and Master in a case relating to claims made by Carrian Investments Ltd in 2 previous Writs.
Munro and Claypole was also brought before the High Court, concerning an Order, in High Court Action Number 2406, of 1987, a Miscellaneous Proceeding.
More Than Once in the ‘Hot Seat'
In the next category of entrants for the Golden Scroll Award, TARGET is pleased to announce those firms which have had the honour to appear as Defendants not only once, but twice, in front of their Lordships at the High Court.
So and Karbhari, formerly known as H.M.So and Com-
pany, was summoned to the High Court in March 1986 by Hui Shum Yuen Ying in Action
Number 135 of 1986.
The Plaintiff claimed that
the solicitors firm had remained in its offices on the eighth floor of the Sanwa Building after the expiry of its tenancy agreement, and alleged that the Defendant had failed to pay rent and air- conditioning charges and fur- thermore, had allegedly not paid management fees since the tenancy agreement had taken effect.
The Plaintiff claimed for all
of the alleged arrears and costs
of the Action.
When So and Karbhari was
settled into new offices on the
twentieth floor of the Sino
Centre in Kowloon, Pang Koon Chi, trading as Koon Chi Trad- ing Company, filed High Court Action Number 1995 of 1987 naming the solicitors firm as Defendant.
The Plaintiff accused the firm of being 'vicariously liable for the fraud or fraudulent conspiracy of the said K.K.Yeung' (a former clerk with the solicitors firm) because, it was alleged in the Writ, Mr Yeung had accepted a fraudulent document which, combined with the stipulations made bythe solicitors firm in the drawing up of the sale and purchase agreement, meant that the Plaintiff had no rights to claim for payment when the purchaser of the Plaintiff's goods was alleged not to have paid.
In 1983, Fairbairn and Kwok was named as the Defen- dant in High Court Action Number 14224 filed by Bohemia Enterprises Ltd and Horse Shoe Industries Ltd.
This Action alleged that the firm had failed to advise the Plaintiffs properly when the Plaintiffs signed a purchase agreement for some property which was allegedly not con-
structed on time.
The Plaintiffs claimed that if they had been given the proper advice they would not have signed such an agreement and therefore claimed damages for monies lost from the De-
fendant.
26
-