PAUL’S MODELS ART GMBH & CO KG v. U. T. LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 1501/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1501 OF 2000

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

BETWEEN

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

(BY COUNTERCLAIM)

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

DECISION ON COSTS

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

Introduction

1.  On 29th March 2011, I rejected an application made by the Plaintiff for leave to appeal from my decision of 18th January 2011 in relation to an application also made by the Plaintiff for specific discovery. 

2.  I ordered the costs of the argument to be paid by the Plaintiff, to be taxed by me on a gross sum basis.  The parties have exchanged gross sum statements of costs and objections.  I now rule on the gross sum to be paid by the Plaintiff to each of the two ‘camps’ of defendants, being the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, and the 4th and 5th Defendants.

1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants’ Costs

3.  The total sum sought by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants in their Statement of Costs is HK$65,154.  This comprises Counsel’s fee on the brief for the leave hearing at HK$18,000, together with solicitors fees and very minor other disbursements.

4.  The Plaintiff suggests reductions totalling HK$25,200.  Some of the objections are based on the apparent duplication of work by two senior fee earners, others on the excessive time claimed, and a point relating to the duplication of work covered by counsel’s fees.  There seems some merit in those objections.  There is no criticism of Counsel’s fee, which also seems apt for the hearing as conducted by Counsel of that level of seniority.

5.  Dealing with the matter in the round, it seems to me that a figure of HK$45,000 is an appropriate sum to be paid by the Plaintiff to these Defendants.

4th and 5th Defendants’ Costs

6.  The total sum sought by the 4th and 5th Defendants in their Statement of Costs is HK$100,826.  This comprises Counsel’s fee on the brief for the leave hearing at HK$60,000, together with solicitors fees and minor other disbursements.

7.  The Plaintiff suggests reductions totalling HK$49,420.  Some of the objections are based on the apparent duplication of work by two senior fee earners, others on the excessive time claimed, and a point relating to the duplication of work covered by counsel’s fees.  There is also the suggestion that Counsel’s fee is excessive. Again, there seems some merit in at least some of those objections.

8.  First, I agree that Counsel’s fee seems on the high side for the Plaintiff to have to bear.  Even bearing in mind the seniority of the Counsel in question, he had of course argued the substantive hearing and the hearing for leave to appeal was fixed with a short estimate as was suitable for such an application.  I would think a fee of HK$35,000 is apt.

9.  Dealing with the other points in the round, I think a total sum of HK$65,000 (to include counsel’s fee) is an appropriate sum to be paid by the Plaintiff to these Defendants.