Stephenson Harwood Filed Rubbish Into Court - Li Chun Pong Raymond (李振邦) v Li Maggie Hang Yung (李杏容) [2024] HKDC 1211 - Fatally Defective Pleading Done Incompetently By Hong Kong Law Firm Stephenson Harwood Solicitors
//120. I accept D’s oral evidence, recited verbatim above, as entirely true. I accept D never gave proper or full instructions to D’s solicitors, and D’s solicitors never took proper or full instructions (or raised relevant and material questions) from D either. This was appalling. It was so appalling I seriously considered whether the handling solicitor should be reported to the Law Society of Hong Kong so that he or she could be investigated and prosecuted for his or her clear breach of Principle 6.01 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, which required all solicitors in Hong Kong to serve their clients competently, in a conscientious, diligent, prompt and efficient manner. Not taking D’s proper or full instructions on the two torts in question for over 4 years (March 2020 to April 2024), not paying sufficient, or any, attention to the constituent elements of these torts by reference to what was said by Mr Justice Anthony Chan in Lau Tat Wai v Yip Lai Kuen Joey [2013] 2 HKLRD 1197, and not complying with Order 18 rule 12(1)(b) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H) in drafting a pleading, must each be a clear breach of Principle 6.01 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct. In my view, the incompetence was wholly unacceptable, and frankly rather shocking. However, all things considered, my ultimate decision is to focus on trying to bring some closure to the parties to this litigation, and to just leave it to D and D’s solicitors to work out any and all other issues amongst themselves. I shall therefore say no more about Principle 6.01, unless and save in so far as shall be necessary for the parties’ understanding of my ratio decidendi in this matter.//
Comments
Post a Comment