ASIA WIDE HOTELS AND RESORTS LTD v. KIMBERLEY CRAIG ROBINSON

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 5403 OF 1999

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. This is an application by the Defendant pursuant to my order made on 22^nd April 1997 for a payment by the Plaintiff of costs on indemnity basis and for such costs to be assessed by way of gross sum assessment under Order 62 r. 9(4)(b). This is my gross sum assessment.

2. I have seen the documents put before me. There are a number of objections raised by Mr. Bowers who had been delegated by Mr. Ng to make submissions to the court. There are four objections to the costs claimed by the Defendant.

3. The first objection is that the charge-out rate of the two main fee earners-Mr. Tang and Ms. Stephanie Cheung, had been too high at $5,000.00 an hour and that the rate should be $4,000.00 an hour according to the Law Society Circular of 29^th March 1999. That Circular provides for the charge-out rate between party and party. This is on an indemnity basis. There has been no uplift at all for this piece of very very heavy litigation where Ms. Cheung had to be engaged full time including Saturdays and Sundays on work which has wide implications, a long term applications, for the Defendant and for his business. I think $5,000.00 an hour is perfectly reasonable.

4. The other objection which is also related, is that the charge-out total time of 145.5 hours from the 9^th to 22^nd April is too high. One has to take into account first that this is a work for two fee earners not just Ms. Cheung and but also Mr. Tang. Mr. Tang and Ms. Cheung have their different expertise and their different contribution to the work. There is also included in the hours of 145.5, a time element for the preparation of bill. I do not think in the circumstances that the time is excessive. I think if anything as Ms. Cheung had said, it is very conservative and Ms. Cheung had prepared the bill with the eye and knowledge that possibly it might be a colleague solicitor who would have to pay the bill eventually, so she has been very conservative. I do not think there is anything in that objection.

5. The third objection is that the counsel's fee of $225,057.00. Mr. Bowers has very graciously left it in the court's discretion. I have looked at the bill. Ms. Lau is a very senior counsel and obviously appropriate counsel to be engaged in this piece of litigation. I think the bill is not excessive. In any event, it is on indemnity basis.

6. Then the last matter is a small aspect about the police station attendance. I have been told by Ms. Cheung as to the circumstances surrounding this. I am satisfied that it is also appropriate.

7. So accordingly, I do allow in full the bill of the Defendant's costs on indemnity basis and the total sum is therefore assessed at $1,001,217.00 and this sum should be paid by the Plaintiff.