XU HONGBIAO v. OASIS INVESTMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 1963/2020

[2024] HKCFI 3196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1963 OF 2020

________________________

(By Original Action)

AND BETWEEN

________________________

(By Counterclaim)

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.  I refer to my 2 Decisions handed down on 29 March 2023[1] (the “Decision”)  and 8 November 2023[2] (the “Leave Decision”). I adopt the same terms and abbreviations I used therein.

2.  There are 2 set of costs before this Court for summary assessment.  I will consider them in turn.

The costs of the Setting Aside Summons

3.  For the relevant costs order, I refer to §89 of the Decision.  I record that I have previously stayed that costs order and the summary assessment thereof pending, upon my Leave Decision refusing As leave to appeal against the Decision, disposition of their renewed application for leave before the Court of Appeal.

4.  Their renewed application for leave before the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 10 September 2024[3].

5.  I have considered Rs’ Statement of Costs of 12 April 2023.  They claim costs in the total sum of $3,617,377 (inclusive of Counsel fees in the total sum of $783,750).

6.  I have considered As’ Statement of Objections of 26 April 2023.  Subject to the addition of Counsel’s fees which they say they reserve the right to object upon provision of the relevant fee notes, they say that only HK$679,129 should be allowed.

7.  I have considered Rs’ Reply of 4 May 2023.

8.  My assessment, on a broad-brush approach, is as follows:

(a)  Given the complexity of the matters, I am of the view that the hourly rates charged by the fee earners are appropriate;

(b)  Items B1 and B2 (Manual Work)  are in my view reasonable.  I assess the total costs at $15,000;

(c)  Items C1 to C5 (Communications)  involved duplications.  I assess the total costs at $350,000;

(d)  Items D1 to D5 (Professional Work)  in the total amount of $1,604,700 are in my view excessive.  I assess the total costs at $800,000;

(e)  In respect of E (Disbursements):

(i)  I allow counsel fees in the total sum of $783,750 (Items E1 and E2);

(ii)  I respect of Items E3 to E6, I allow the respective sums of $70,000, $140,000, $180,000 and $100,000.

9.  In total, I summarily assess the relevant costs at the round-off figure of $2,400,000.

The costs of the Leave Application

10.  For the relevant costs order, I refer to §51 of the Leave Decision.

11.  I have considered Rs’ Statement of Costs of 3 October 2024.  They claim costs in the total sum of $652,398 (inclusive of Counsel fees in the total sum of $349,000).

12.  I have considered As’ Statement of Objections of 17 October 2024.  They say that only HK$372,368 should be allowed.

13.  I have considered Rs’ Reply of 24 October 2024.

14.  My assessment, on a broad-brush approach, is as follows:

(a)  Given the complexity of the matters, I am of the view that the hourly rates charged by the fee earners are appropriate;

(b)  Items B1 to B3 (Manual Work)  are in my view reasonable.  I assess the total costs at $9,000;

(c)  Items C1 to C4 (Communications)  involved duplications. Total hours of 20.5 for an application on law are also in my view excessive.  I assess the total costs at $60,000;

(d)  Items D1 to D2 (Professional Work)  of 21.5 hours are in my view excessive, particularly with 2 counsel having been instructed.  I assess the total costs at $70,000;

(e)  In respect of E (Disbursements), I allow counsel fees in the total sum of $349,000 (Items E1 and E2).

15.  In total, I summarily assess the relevant costs at the round-off figure of $480,000.

16.  I make no further costs order in respect of this assessment.