bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

A contempt of court suit against the head of one of the city's largest law firms has been dismissed and the firm behind it penalised for wasting court resources.

In a written judgment, High Court Judge Anselmo Reyes dismissed a civil contempt case brought against Donald Koo Hoi-yan, the founder of Koo & Partners, by his former firm, Kao, Lee & Yip.

It was the latest episode in a 12-year legal battle between Mr Koo and the firm over work he does for the Bank of China Group (BOC).

In April 2003, Chief High Court Judge Geoffrey Ma Tao-li found that Mr Koo had established a new firm, Koo & Partners, while still a partner at Kao, Lee & Yip in 1993 and had poached BOC as a client.

Mr Justice Ma ordered that Mr Koo produce a full account of the profits gained through work for BOC for the year from October 1, 1993, with a view to handing over that money to Kao, Lee & Yip.

A 1994 court action brought by Kao, Lee & Yip had resulted in an order being made for Mr Koo to keep records of all work his firm performed for BOC.

However, when Mr Koo presented the accounts, it was found that 700 of the 2,000 files pertaining to BOC were either lacking in detail or missing all together.

Kao, Lee & Yip filed suit saying that the absence of those files was a material breach of both the 1994 and 2003 orders, and that Mr Koo was therefore in contempt of court.

Mr Koo contended that he did indeed put in place a system for keeping note of the work but it was an information technology-based system  and some of the files had been lost through no fault of his own.

Mr Justice Reyes agreed, saying that Mr Koo had complied with the 1994 order by implementing a system to track BOC work. That it did not retain everything was regrettable, but it was a system nonetheless.

'Files inevitably go missing over the 10 years as they are moved in and out of storage.  I do not think the problematic files are any sufficient basis for finding contempt,' Mr Justice Reyes said.

He found also that Mr Koo had complied with all subsequent orders and while Kao, Lee & Yip might dispute some of the figures, there was no contempt.

Mr Justice Reyes found the suit had been without a great deal of merit and while a previous judge had rejected claims from Mr Koo's side that the litigation was being continued out of spite, he was not so sure. '[Playing] 'hardball' is one thing; pointless maintenance of a motion of contempt is another.'

He ordered Kao, Lee & Yip to pay Mr Koo's costs on an indemnity basis for the contempt application.

'In my judgment the wasteful consequences of pointless 'hardball' should be reflected in an appropriate costs order,' he said.



Judge throws out contempt case in 12-year legal saga