|
HCA 897/2018
[2022] HKCFI 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 897 OF 2018
______________
BETWEEN
| |
莫懿 |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
宏大香港資產管理有限公司 |
1st Defendant |
| |
陳宏 |
2nd Defendant |
(By original action)
______________
AND BETWEEN
| |
宏大香港資產管理有限公司 |
1st Plaintiff |
| |
陳宏 |
2nd Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
莫懿 |
1st Defendant |
| |
DENG ZHI(鄧智) |
2nd Defendant |
(By counterclaim)
______________
| Before: |
Hon K Yeung J in Chambers |
| Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply to List of Objections by the 1st and 2nd Defendants by original action and the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs by counterclaim: |
|
29 December 2021 and 7 January 2022 |
| Date of List of Objections by the Plaintiff by original action and the 1st and 2nd Defendants by counterclaim: |
|
5 January 2022 |
| Date of Decision on Costs: |
|
19 January 2022 |
_______________________
2nd DECISION ON COSTS
_______________________
1. I refer to my Decision of 29 October 2021 (the “Decision”)[1] and the Decision on Costs of 21 December 2021[2].
2. I have considered:
(a) the Statement of Costs of GCAM and Chen of 29 December 2021, wherein they claim, in respect of the O.14 Summons (Part I), the sum of HK$248,704, and in respect of the application for variation of the Costs Order Nisi (Part II), the sum of HK$19,432;
(b) the List of Objections of Mo, wherein deductions in the total sum of HK$143,692 are sought; and
(c) the Reply of GCAM and Chen.
3. One main objection by Mo is that part of the costs relate to GCAM and Chen’s defence and the main action, and that they should not be included in the present Statement. In this regard, I refer to §§6 and 7 of the Decision on Costs.
4. On the other hand, I am of the view that GCAM and Chen’s claim under Sections D1 (Preparation of Documents), D2 (Perusal of documents) and D3 (Preparation for hearing on 6 October 2021) for more than 36 hours in total is excessive. I summarily assess Section D at HK$100,000.
5. I regard counsel fee at HK$55,000 to be reasonable.
6. Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess Part I at HK$190,000.
7. I regard Part II as being broadly reasonable, which I summarily assess at HK$19,000.
8. I make no further costs order in respect of this assessment.
| |
(Keith Yeung) |
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
| |
High Court |
List of Objections by L&Y Law Office, for the Plaintiff by original action and the 1st and 2nd Defendants by counterclaim
Statement of Costs and Reply to List of Objections by Tanner De Witt, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants by original action and the 1st
and 2nd Plaintiffs by counterclaim
|