CHEN MEI HUAN (also known as LIU MEI HUAN CHEN) v. SILVER FAITH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

HCCW 111/2014

[2018] HKCFI 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES (WINDING-UP) PROCEEDINGS No.111 OF 2014

____________

____________

____________

_______________________________________________

DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_______________________________________________

1.  On 15 January 2018, I handed down in decision on inter alia variation of costs order nisi (“Costs Decision”) and granted the following order (“Costs Order”):

(a)   the Costs Order Nisi granted on 18 October 2017 was made absolute;

(b)   there be a costs order nisi that the petitioner (“Chen”) shall pay the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents (“Ng/Daughter”) costs of and occasioned by Chen’s summons filed on 30 October 2017 (“Variation Summons”) and the Consent Summons filed on 15 November 2017 (“Consent Summons”) (including all costs reserved, if any) to be summarily assessed;

(c)   Ng/Daughter shall within 14 days from date thereof lodge and serve statement of costs of not more than 1 page pursuant to Practice Direction 14.3; and

(d)   Chen do within 7 days thereafter lodge and serve summary of objections of not more than 1 page in response thereto;

(e)   summary assessment of such costs would be by paper disposal unless otherwise directed.

2.  For convenience, unless otherwise stated, I shall adopt herein the abbreviations in my Decision handed down on 18 October 2017 and in the Costs Decision.

3.  Pursuant to the Costs Order, Ng/Daughter filed their statement of costs on 25 January 2018 (“Further Statement of Costs”), and Chen lodged her summary of objections on 31 January 2018. The costs order nisi under the Costs Order had become absolute.

4.  The proper approach to summary assessment of costs has been summarised on in paragraph 19 in the Costs Decision.

5.  Here, Ng/Daughter sought a total sum of HK$43,600 comprising solicitors’ profit costs of HK$21,200 and counsel’s fees of HK$22,400.

6.  For the purpose of the summary assessment herein, I shall adopt a broad-brush approach pursuant to paragraph 13 of Practice Direction 14.3 as it is inappropriate to conduct any mini-taxation. Bearing in mind the two-stage approach required for summary assessment, and having considered the nature and scope of the Variation and Consent Summonses, skeleton submissions and list of authorities, what transpired at the hearing of the Variation Summons, the involvement of counsel in the matter, and the matters noted below, and taking into account all the circumstances, the overall costs claimed by Ng/Daughter under the Further Statement of Costs appeared to be on the high side on party-and-party basis. I make the following general observations.

7.  First, the costs in question are assessed on party-and-party basis such that only costs that are necessary/proper and reasonable will be allowed.

8.  Secondly, Chen did not dispute the hourly rates of the fee‑earners GR and DC. In my view, their hourly rates (HK$4,000 for GR and HK$2,000 for DC) were not disproportionate or unreasonable on party-and-party basis.

9.  Thirdly, in relation Ng’s/Daughter’s claim for time-cost by LC for filing/serving skeleton submissions at 1 hour (HK$1,200), I note that costs for collecting/filing/lodging documents are not assessed on hourly rate basis. According to Part I of the First Schedule of Order 62 of the RHC, the cost of each attendance for unqualified staff to file and serve documents is $110. Thus, Item B should be reduced. I accept Chen’s proposal for Item B at HK$600 to be reasonable.

10.  Fourthly, in relation to Item C, Chen had no objection to GR’s time costs for attendance on client (0.5 hours / HK$2,000). As regards attendance on other side, I agree with Chen that GR’s input should be minimal since the essential efforts concerned negotiating agreement for the Consent Summons and other simple correspondence, which tasks could have been delegated to DC. I also agree the time costs claimed for DC (1 hour / HK$2,000) were on the high side. As regards attendance on counsel, I accept GR’s time costs (0.5 hour / HK$2,000) were appropriate.

11.  Fifthly, in relation to Item D, I do not consider it necessary to involve 2 fee-earners. After all, it was GR who liaised with counsel, and it would be efficient and sufficient for GR to peruse the relevant documents such as skeleton submissions by Chen’s counsel. Likewise, it would be efficient and sufficient for GR to peruse the skeleton submissions by Ng’s/Daughter’s counsel. I see no justification (at least on party‑and‑party basis) for solicitors to “settle” counsel’s skeleton submissions.

12.  Sixthly, in relation to Item E, Ng/Daughter claimed counsel’s brief fee of HK$22,400, and Chen proposed HK$15,000. Bearing in mind it was entirely appropriate to have junior counsel to Mr Chua SC at the substantive hearing (who was familiar with the background of the substantive applications) to appear for Ng/Daughter for the Variation Summons, and the fact Mr A Tang was called to the bar in 2011, I find his brief fee to be necessary/proper and reasonable in the circumstances.

13.  Taking into account all of the above matters, and upon considering the items of costs claimed to see whether or not they were “necessary and its costs reasonable” on the sensible standard of necessity as explained by the Court of Appeal, Ng’s/Daughter’s total costs on their

Further Statement of Costs are assessed at HK$35,000. I therefore order that Chen shall pay Ng/Daughter costs in the sum of HK$35,000.