CHEN HONGQING v. ASIA CEMENT CORPORATION

HCA 1304/2017 and
HCMP 962/2017
(Heard Together)

[2021] HKCFI 2747

HCMP 962/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 962 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

________________________

AND

HCA 1304/2017

ACTION NO 1304 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

(Heard together)

________________________

DECISION
ON COSTS

________________________

1.  I refer to my decision handed down on 16 March 2021 (the “Decision”)[1]. The 962 Ds and ACC have made applications for summary assessment of the costs involved. For those purposes, Statements of Costs have been filed. Chen HQ has filed his statements of objections. Replies have also been filed. Below are my decisions.

The 962 Ds

2.  I deal first with the applications by the 962 Ds.

3.  They were successful in the Dismissal Summons and the Joinder and Injunction Summons.

4.  In respect of the Dismissal Summons, I made a costs order nisi in terms of §3 of the same, that the costs of the Originating Summons, including all costs reserved and of the Dismissal Summons, be paid by Chen HQ forthwith, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

5.  In respect of the Joinder and Injunction Summons, I made a costs order nisi that Chen HQ shall bear the costs of and occasioned by the same, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for 2 counsel for both the 962 Ds and ACC.

6.  By letter of 7 April 2021 (with submissions of Mr Maurellet and Mr Tang attached), the 962 Ds seek summary assessment of the costs involved.

7.  I on 8 April 2021 gave directions on the further conduct of the application.

8.  Given the interlocutory and discreet nature of the applications, and that Chen HQ is not resident within the jurisdiction, I agree that the costs involved should be summarily assessed.  Chen HQ has filed no submission seeking to argue the contrary.

9.  I have considered the Statement of Costs, objections and reply filed by the parties.  The parties’ respective positions are close.  The total costs originally claimed by the 962 Ds is HK$1,304,588.  The total costs Chen HQ proposes to be allowed is HK$1,152,388.  The adjusted total costs the 962 Ds finally claim is HK$1,220,678. 

10.  Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$1,208,000, made up of Part 1: HK$58,000, Part 2: HK$800,000 and Part 3: HK$350,000.

11.  I accordingly vary the costs order nisi to the extent that the 962 Ds’ costs be summarily assessed, which amount I assess as above.

ACC

12.  At §53 of the Decision, in addition to the costs order nisi I have summarised at §5 above, I further ordered on a nisi basis that Chen HQ do bear the costs of the Security for Costs Application, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for 2 counsel.

13.  By letter of 26 March 2021, ACC seeks summary assessment of their costs.

14.  I on 8 April 2021 gave directions on the further conduct of the application.

15.  Again, given the interlocutory and discreet nature of the applications, and that Chen HQ is not resident within the jurisdiction, I agree that the costs involved should be summarily assessed.  Chen HQ has filed no submission seeking to argue the contrary.

16.  I have considered the Statement of Costs, objections and reply filed by the parties.

17.  In relation to the Dismissal Summons (Part 1):

(a)  ACC claims total costs of HK$400,035;

(b)  Chen HQ proposes HK$272,165;

(c)  I agree that the claim for Professional Work (Section D)  in the total amount of HK$188,100 is on the high side, and involves duplications;

(d)  Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the total costs at HK$320,000.

18.  In relation to the Joinder and Injunction Summons (Part 2):

(a)  ACC claims total costs of HK$997,807.50;

(b)  Chen HQ proposes HK$613,647.50;

(c)  The claim for Professional Work (Section D)  in the total amount of HK$529,150 is in my view excessive, and involves duplications;

(d)  Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the total costs at HK$730,000.

19.  In relation to the Security for Costs Application (Part 3):

(a)  ACC claims total costs of HK$601,522.50;

(b)  Chen HQ proposes HK$164,620;

(c)  The claim for Professional Work (Section D)  in the total amount of HK$291,620 is in my view too high, and involves duplications;

(d)  I agree that the claim for Counsel’s Fee (Section E)  in the total sum of HK$244,762.50 is on the high side given the fact that only quantum is in dispute;

(e)  Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the total costs at HK$380,000.

(f)  I therefore summarily assess the total costs as above in the sum of HK$1,430,000 (HK$320,000 + HK$730,000  + HK$380,000).

20.  I accordingly vary the costs order nisi to the extent that ACC’s costs be summarily assessed, which amount I assess as above.

Costs of these applications

21.  I make no further order as to costs in respect of these applications.