Legal Survey
THE GOLDEN SCROLL AWARDS
WHICH LAW FIRM HAS SPENT THE MOST TIME
IN THE HIGH COURT -- IN THE DEFENDANT'S SEAT!
Over the last 5 years, 25 legal firms in Hongkong have been hauled up in front of Hongkong's High Court a total of no less than 56 times.
They have been asked to answer charges for a variety of claims, including Conspiracy to Defraud, Damages, Breach of Duty, and Breach of Agreement.
Of the 320 solicitors' firms in Hongkong (as at May 10, 1988), 25 of them had been named as Defendants in High Court Writs (excluding actions concerning Taxation).
More than half of the firms involved in legal proceedings have been named more than once as Defendants.
TARGET hereby lists the nominees for our Golden Scroll Award, which will be awarded every 5 years to the firm that has been named as Defendant in the High Cr art the
most times since 1983.
In the best tradition of awards ceremonies finalists will
be announced in reverse order.
In 1984, Day and Company was named as the First De- fendant in the matter of an equitable lier attaching to settle- ment sums arising out of High Court Action Number 6290, by the Plaintiff, another legal firm, O'Cock and Day Solici-
tors.
This year,
in High Court Action Number 3073 of 1988, Wong, Hui and Company was sued as a firm by Filipino lawyers who claimed a total of $US19,601.62 ($HK152,892.63), plus 2 percent interest per month, on the amount allegedly owed for 'work done, services rendered and monies paid' in 1986.
Also this year, John Lok and Partners Ltd and Denton Hall Burgin and Warrens were both called to the dock by Empire Engineering Company Ltd which claimed that both of the solicitors companies had 'failed to achieve for the Plaintiff any adequate or reasonable payment in respect of
its claims."
High Court Action Number 1369 of 1985 claimed for damages of $HK19,800 from Denton Hall Burgin and Warrens and for declarations from both of the Defendants that they were in breach of their fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and that they were in Breach of Contract.
Kwan and Kwan was named as Defendant in High Court Action Number 8521 of 1984 by the Plaintiff, Menyouth Ltd, because, it was claimed, the Defendant failed to advise the client that the Tenancy Agreement into which it had entered did not permit the company to start a restaurant as it had intended, and therefore damages of $HK276,154.80 were
claimed.
In February this year, in High Court Action Number 1417, Liu Ming Sun claimed damages against Iu, Lai and Li to the tune of $HK514,058.20 for alleged Breach of Contract and/or Negligence when acting as the Plaintiff's solicitors during a divorce proceeding.
Wilkinson and Grist has been taken to task by Mr Alexander Tse Ming Cheung in High Court Action 1007 of 1988. The Plaintiff is seeking an Order that the Defendant delivers to the Plaintiff various document allegedly in the firm's possession.
B.Evershine Enterprises Ltd named Hoosenally and Neo as Defendant in High Court Action Number 6464 of 1987 and claimed Damages of $US59,052 ($HK460,605.6) as the solicitors firm was alleged to have failed to have properly advised the client and to have filed an action in the wrong jurisdiction, which, the Plaintiff claimed, meant that it was unable to recover the cost of goods which were claimed to be
- 25 -
-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.