SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOY BING WING

HCMP 2665 /2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2665 OF 2012

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1313 OF 2010)

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

________________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 February 2013 we dismissed the Defendant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of L Chan J dated 9 October 2012. We ordered that the costs of the application should be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, that such costs would be summarily assessed, and gave directions for the lodging of the Plaintiff’s statement of costs, the Defendant’s objections thereto and the Plaintiff’s response to such objections.

2.  Pursuant to those directions, the Plaintiff lodged his Statement of Costs under cover of a letter dated 18 February 2012.  The Defendant did not submit any objections to that Statement.  It is, nonetheless, necessary for the court to consider the Statement and to assess the amount of the costs to be awarded to the Plaintiff.

3.  The total amount of the costs claimed by the Plaintiff is HK$13,478, made up of HK$1,745 for manual work (photocopying, attendance by a law clerk, attending on the handing down of judgment and compilation of a bundle for the application), HK$1,733 for communications with the court and others, and HK$10,000 for professional work in relation to perusal and preparation of documents.  The charging rate used for the fee earner, who was admitted in 1996, was HK$4,000 per hour, while that used for the law clerk was HK$1,000 per hour.

4.  The charging rates used were appropriate, as were the amounts sought in respect of manual work (other than photocopying) and communications.  We allow those items in full.

5.  However, the amount claimed for photocopying (HK$1,142) seems to be on the high side, as the bundle ran to some 158 pages, and the statement in opposition to the grant of leave and authorities ran to a further 30-odd pages.  In our view, an amount of HK$800 would suffice for this item (a reduction of HK$342).

6.  As to the amount claimed for professional work, it seems to us that the time spent (2.5 hours) is also on the high side, given that this was a very simple matter, which (as we held in our judgment of 8 February 2013) was completely lacking in merit.  We consider that a total of 1.75 hours would have been sufficient to deal with it, and we therefore reduce the amount allowed for professional work to HK$7,000 (a reduction of HK$3,000).

7.  We therefore assess the Plaintiff’s costs of the application for leave to appeal in the amount of HK$10,136 (HK$13,478 less HK$3,342).