|
HCCT 42/2021
[2022] HKCFI 1527
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 42 OF 2021
________________________
BETWEEN
|
PERPETUAL WEALTH
(HONG KONG) LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
|
and |
|
|
BE SOLUTIONS COMPANY LIMITED |
1st Defendant |
|
YU PUI SZE |
2nd Defendant |
|
TSE YIU MO
(also known as BILLY TSE) |
3rd Defendant |
________________________
Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers
Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply by
the 1st Defendant: 8 and 28 April 2022
Date of Statement of Objections by the Plaintiff: 22 April 2022
Date of Decision on Costs: 25 May 2022
________________________
DECISION
ON COSTS
________________________
1. By my decision handed down on 28 March 2022[1], I refused P’s application for security for costs against D1 as the counterclaiming defendant. I make a costs order nisi that D1 shall have the costs of the application, with certificate for counsel. I also gave directions for summary assessment of those costs.
2. By their Statement of Costs of 8 April 2022, Messrs Keith Lam Lau & Chan (“KLL&C”) on behalf of D1 claim costs in the total amount of HK$163,800.
3. By their Statement of Objections of 22 April 2022, Messrs Stevenson, Wong & Co for P claim that a total of HK$111,902, should be deducted, leaving only the amount of HK$51,898.
4. That net amount of HK$51,898 suggested on behalf of P is in my view unrealistically low.
5. On the other hand, given the nature of the application, which is not complication, I am of the view that the total amount of HK$163,800 claimed by KLL&C on D1’s behalf is unreasonably high. In my view, and adopting a broad brush approach:
(a) 11.5 hours of attendance on client, the other side and counsel, in the total sum of HK$51,800 is on the high side. I reduce the total amount to HK$35,000;
(b) Total professional work for 13 hours in the total sum of HK56,400 is also on the high side. I reduce the total amount to HK$40,000;
(c) I allow counsel’s brief fee in the sum of HK$5,000 for the call-over hearing on 12 March 2021, which costs were reserved;
(d) Counsel’s brief fee in the sum of HK$50,000 for the substantial application, including preparation of the written submissions for paper disposal is reasonable, which I allow.
6. I hence summarily assess D1’s costs at HK$130,000.
7. I make no further costs order in respect of this summary assessment.
|
(Keith Yeung) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court |
Statement of Objections by Stevenson, Wong & Co, for the Plaintiff
Statement of Costs and Reply by Keith Lam Lau & Chan, for the 1st Defendant
|