PANG YU HIM v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

DCCJ 5519/2021

[2023] HKDC 1029

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5519 OF 2021

--------------------

BETWEEN

--------------------

------------------------------

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

------------------------------

1.  On 30 December 2022, I handed down my decision in this action (a) dismissing the plaintiff’s summons for leave to file and serve voluntary particulars of the Amended Statement of Claim (“the ASOC”) and (b) allowing the defendant’s summons to strike out the ASOC and dismiss the action.

2.  I ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs in this action including the costs of both summonses and all reserved costs to be summarily assessed if not agreed.

3.  The parties have failed to agree on costs and, in pursuance of my directions, the defendant submitted a Statement of Costs (“the Statement”) and the plaintiff submitted a concise statement of his objections for the purpose of summary assessment.

4.  This is the summary assessment of the defendant’s costs. Given the nature of the exercise, I will be brief in my deliberation. The respective stance of the parties and my ruling are summarized below.

Item	Claim	Objection	Ruling
B) Manual Work	Totaling $4,067	No objection	Allow in full
C1) Attendance on Client	12 hours	Quantum amounting to 12 hours appears excessive and borders on the unreasonable end of the scale. The Plaintiff humbly suggest a reduction of 6 hours under this item	Deduct 6 hours, having regard to the issues in dispute
C2) Attendance on Plaintiff	5 hours	Quantum excessive. The Plaintiff humbly suggest a reduction of 3 hours under this item	Deduct 2 hours
C3) Attendance on Court	1 hour	No objection	Allow in full
C4) Attendance on Counsel	8 hours	Having regard to substantial experience and seniority of both the Senior Government Counsel for the Defendant and learned Counsel for the Defendant, quantum in the amount of 8 hours for attending on Counsel would appear rather disproportionate and excessive. The Plaintiff humbly suggest a reduction of 2 hours under this item	Deduct 2 hours, having regard to the issues in dispute and the seniority of counsel
D1) Preparation of documents	6 hours	Bearing in mind the experience and seniority of the Senior Government Counsel for the Defendant, and with counsel having been instructed, the quantum under this item might be seen as being on the more disproportionate end of the spectrum. The Plaintiff humbly suggest a reduction of 2 hours under this item	Allow in full, having regard to the documents filed
D2-D5)	Totaling 7 hours 40 mins	No objection	Allow in full
E1) Counsel’s fees	Totaling $145,050	The item shows no particulars of the works undertaken by counsel, in that it failed to itemize by nature the said works (eg drafting, conference or etc) as per Appendix A, PD 14.3. The Plaintiff could therefore only object to the gross amount charged which, in any event and notwithstanding counsel’s experience and expertise, would be excessive and unreasonable, given the circumstances surrounding this action. The Plaintiff humbly suggest a gross sum of HK$60,000 under this item	Allow $90,000, having regard to the complexity of the issues in dispute

5.  Lastly, the plaintiff takes issue with the fact that the usual certificate at the end of a statement of costs to confirm that the costs claimed do not exceed the claimant’s liability for costs to his solicitors is missing from the Statement.[1]

6.  A party and party taxation is based on the principle of indemnity that the receiving party may only claim from the paying party an indemnity in respect of costs recovered by the order.[2] In terms of summary assessment, para 10 of Practice Direction 14.3 generally provides that:

“… the principle that a receiving party cannot recover a sum in excess of his liability to his own solicitors applies equally to summary assessment. Accordingly, the solicitor for the party seeking costs shall certify on the statement of costs as follows,

‘I certify that the amount claimed in this statement of costs does not exceed [the plaintiff’s / defendant’s] liability for costs to my firm in respect of this [summons / hearing / action, etc].’”

7.  Whilst the requirement works well with solicitors in private practice, it is inapt to apply when the receiving party is the Secretary for Justice or represented by the Department of Justice (“the Department”). This is because the Department does not generally issue bill of costs for the legal services it rendered to government departments.[3] In cases such as the present one when the Department has not charged the police for the legal services rendered, it would be meaningless to attach the standard wording certificate to the Statement.