By August 1987, Fairbairn and Kwok, then ‘soliciting' as Fairbairn, Catley, Low and Wong, was again summoned to the High Court in Action Number 5132, this time by Mr William Shen, who claimed that the Defendant was liable for
$HK507,200 (approximately), being damages and costs.
Mr Shen claimed that the Defendant had acted negli- gently when allegedly advising him to make an investment in a Canadian company of $C80,000 ($HK507,200), as the Defendant had allegedly failed to inform Mr Shen that it had incorporated the company in which it had supposedly ad- vised him to make an investment, and that this company was
also a client of the firm.
Liu, Chan and Lam was taken to task by Lau Kwok Choi in High Court Action Number 11421 in September 1983, for alleged Negligence concerning 2 bills of sale, which the Plaintiff claimed had caused him to suffer loss and damages to the tune of $HK407,652.68.
Liu, Chan and Lam was back in the High Court again in December of the same year to answer charges from BCCI Finance International Ltd, which claimed that while em- ployed as its solicitors, the firm had failed to draw up a tenancy agreement in accordance with the Plaintiff's alleged specifications.
BCCI Finance claimed $HK90,000 to cover alleged loss of deposit, purported loss of rental at $HK30,000 per month from December 1, 1982 until November 30, 1985, plus damages, interest and costs.
Lawrence, Ong and Chung made 2 appearances as De- fendants, along with 5 others, in High Court Action Numbers 6074 and 6152 of 1987, both issued by Gaily Engineering Company Ltd. Gaily Engineering claimed that the solicitors firm had acted in Breach of Contract when it handed over monies, of which that it was allegedly in possession as a stakeholder, in circumstances which were outside the con- tractual agreement to do so. The Plaintiff claimed Damages.
Thrice a Defendant...Gladly?
The competition heats up as TARGET announces the Golden Scroll Award nominees of solicitors firms which
have managed to complete the arduous journey to the High Court thrice in the time allotted.
Hastings and Company was sued for damages twice in 1985 in High Court Actions Number 0551 and 281, by Sun Poh Shing Finance Company Ltd in the former Writ and Fan
Shu Kou in the latter.
Both of the above-mentioned cases involved property
disputes, the first in Kowloon, the second on Lantau Island, where, it was alleged, Hastings and Company was 'vicari- ously liable for the Civil Fraud, Breach of Duty in tort, and Breach of Contractual Duty.'
In the third Writ concerning Hastings and Company, there were 3 Plaintiffs, Kong Hoi Sang, Chueponpan Sayan, and Wong Hang Che. This was High Court Action Number
1487 of 1987.
In the Writ, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant failed to prepare an agreement safeguarding the Plaintiffs' interests for the purchase of some factory machinery, an action which, combined with a number of other charges of Negligence and failure to advise the Plaintiffs, resulted, it was alleged, in the loss of $HK1,225,400 which was claimed from the Defendant along with Damages for Negligence and Breach of Contract, interest, and costs.
In High Court Action Number 3691 of 1984, Messrs Hwang and Company was sued for Damages in connection with its alleged role as solicitors to Goddard Estates Ltd, the Plaintiff, during a property transaction which was claimed to have caused Damage to the Plaintiff.
Hwang and Company appeared in the High Court again in 1985 named as Defendants along with The Wing On Bank Ltd by the Plaintiffs, Mr Tommy Lee Wing Sheung and Ms Louise Foo Yuk Ping, in Writ Number 1501.
The Plaintiffs were owners holding, as joint tenants, a flat in Robinson Road, and claimed that they had approached Mr Pepe Richard Henryson Au to arrange a mortgage for their premises.
It was alleged that Mr Au had forged a Power of Attorney to act on behalf of the Plaintiffs and that, therefore, a mortgage prepared by Mr Au with The Wing On Bank was null and void, so the Plaintiffs claimed for Damages and legal costs incurred by the Proceedings.
Hwang and Company was back again in 1987, named as Defendant in High Court Action Number 1858, issued by
Redland Concrete Ltd.
Redland claimed that Hwang and Company had withheld deposit monies for the purchase of a property that never came to completion and despite letters from the Plaintiff's solicitors, the Defendant had allegedly refused to refund the deposit.
Redland claimed $HK11,611,600, interest, and costs. Johnson Stokes and Master has also appeared 3 times in the High Court in the last 5 years. The first time was when 9 Plaintiffs named the firm as the first of 10 Defendants, in
- 27 ·