|
HCCT 66/2020
[2021] HKCFI 1048
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
NO 66 OF 2020
______________
| |
IN THE MATTER of Section 45 of the Arbitration Ordinance, Cap 609 and Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER of an Arbitration
|
_____________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
CAPITAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LIMITED |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
（資富控股有限公司） |
|
| |
ENCORE WEALTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED |
2nd Plaintiff |
| |
（加豐投資有限公司） |
|
| |
南通狮迈汽车科技有限公司 |
3rd Plaintiff |
| |
如皋萨林混合动力汽车科技有限公司 |
4th Plaintiff |
| |
南通威蒙汽车科技有限公司 |
5th Plaintiff |
| |
如皋积泰电动汽车科技有限公司 |
6th Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
南通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司 |
Defendant |
_____________
| Before: |
Hon K Yeung J in Chambers |
| Date of Statement of Costs by the Defendant: |
26 February 2021 |
| Date of Statement of Objection by the 1st to 6th Plaintiffs: |
12 March 2021 |
| Date of Reply to Statement of Objection by the Defendant: |
19 March 2021 |
| Date of Decision on Costs: |
21 April 2021 |
____________________
DECISION ON COSTS
____________________
1. By my Decision handed down on 4 February 2021, I discharged the part of the Interim Injunction at §§1(b) to (d) of the 19 Oct Order. I made a costs order nisi that D shall have the costs of the Summons and Ps’ Variation Summons, with certificate for 2 counsel, to be assessed summarily.
2. On 26 February 2021, D filed its Statement of Costs. It claims costs in the total amount of HK$4,007,380 and RMB1,980,433.
3. On 12 March 2021, Ps lodged their Statement of Objection. They do not object to summary assessment. They raise various objections on the amount claimed.
4. On 19 March 2021, D filed its reply.
5. By any standard, the amount claimed is unreasonably high for a one‑day substantive hearing for discharge. I do not accept D’s submission in reply that this is an exceptional case which justifies or explains the high costs.
6. On quantum, I agree with Ps’ objections and am of the view that there are duplications under C1, D1 and D2, that C2 and D4 are excessive, and that C3 (“Attendance on Counsel” in the sum of HK$135,400), D2 (“Perusal of Documents” by 5 fee earners for HK$446,400) and D3 (“Preparation for hearing” by 5 fee earners for HK$139,800) grossly excessive. I also agree that the total counsel fees for both hearings are excessive, bearing in mind the overlap between the two.
7. In relation to the fees incurred in the Mainland, I agree that the un‑particularized total amount of RMB992,808 for “providing support on liaison” excessive. I also agree that the fees charged by the Mainland experts un‑particularized and excessive. The total sum of RMB1,980,433 is excessive.
8. Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assessed the costs at HK$2,000,000 and RMB400,000. I make no order as to costs in respect of the summary assessment.
9. The total costs so assessed shall be paid within 28 days from the date hereof.
|
(Keith Yeung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Submission of Statement of Objection by DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the 1st to 6th Plaintiffs
Submission of Statement of Costs and Reply to Statement of Objection by Baker & McKenzie, for the Defendant
|