MICHAEL CHEN KANG HUANG AND ANOTHER v. PETER LIT MA

HCA 218/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 218 OF 2005

______________________

______________________

______________________

R U L I N G

______________________

Introduction

1.  The parties are agreed that I should make a gross assessment of the successful Plaintiff’s costs in this matter which I do under O.69 r.9 of the RHC.  For that purpose, I have been supplied with a statement of costs dated 10 November 2006 provided by the Plaintiff’s solicitors under O.62 r.9(4)(b) of the Rules.  The total sought is $520,000.  I also have detailed comments from the Defendant’s solicitors in a letter dated 22 November 2006.  These costs relate to a Master’s appeal before me relating to an order for security for costs together with a summons to discharge a Mareva injunction or, alternatively for an order that the Plaintiffs fortify their undertaking in damages.  The matter occupied a whole day for argument and part of previous day when I gave directions.   

The Bill of Costs

2.  The professional work involved, which is set out under section C is for 122.5 hours and under B, there is a further 48 hours relating to conferences, telephone calls, letters and discussions with counsel.

3.  Complaint is made by the Defendant’s solicitors that the hourly rate charged by the solicitors is excessive and that the time taken over the preparation of this matter has been unnecessarily long.  There is also a suggestion that there may well be a duplication of costs in respect of work that may have been done by more than one of the fee earners. 

The Assessment

4.  It strikes me that the proposed hourly charge out rates are reasonable having regard to the weight of the case and the experience and qualifications of the person involved.  I can only look at this matter broadly.  I have regard to the fact that this is a substantial commercial action with international ramifications.  Such matters are time consuming

but even making every allowance for this, the bill it seems to me is for too high.  The only reasonable item relates to counsel’s fee which should remain as it is.  I propose to halve the bill and will make a gross assessment of $260,000.