HUI YIN SANG AND ANOTHER v. TSOI PING KWAN AND ANOTHER

HCA392/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.392 OF 2008

_________________________

BETWEEN

_________________________

_______________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_______________________________________

1.   On 14 July 2009 I made an order that the plaintiffs do pay the defendants the costs of the application to strike out the statement of claim including the costs that had been reserved by the Registrar on 9 May 2008, the costs that had been reserved by me on 30 June 2009 and the costs of the hearing on 14 July 2009. This is the summary assessment of my costs order.

2.   I have considered the defendants’ statement of costs and the plaintiffs’ objections to the same. I have also considered the skeleton submissions of both parties.

3.   The total sum claimed in the statement of costs is the sum of $1,376,953. Even accepting that the application to strike out was a complex application, it seems to me that the amount claimed is unreasonable and wholly disproportionate having regard to the nature of the application to strike out the statement of claim.

4.   The court does not conduct a mini taxation of costs on a summary assessment but applies a broad brush approach.

5.   As regards item C in the statement of costs, it seems to me that the time spent on the various items in item C was wholly excessive.

6.   As regards items D1 and D2, it seems to me that the time spent was also excessive. I accept that translations had to be obtained for the hearing and the amount claimed is reasonable. The amounts claimed for the hearings as set out in item D4 are, in my view, reasonable, save for the hearing on 14 July 2009, which should be for about 3 hours.

7.   As regards counsel’s fees set out in item E, it seems to me that the amounts claimed for drafting documents and conferences are excessive. Also, for the hearing on 14 July 2009 I do not think that it is appropriate to allow fees for two counsel. It is accepted that Senior Counsel’s fees should be allowed. In view of the fact that the brief to Senior Counsel was only delivered on 8 July 2009, it seems to me that it is unreasonable to allow the full brief fee on the basis of a substantive hearing on the arguments to strike out the statement of claim. It was clear to the parties by then that the hearing would substantially be a costs only hearing.

8.   As regards the disbursements under item F, I am not persuaded that the items were all in relation to the strike out application. I do not regard the payment of penalties to restore companies as being necessary for the strike out application. These are not costs in relation to the litigation in my view and I would disallow the bulk of the expenses under F1. However, it was reasonable to obtain foreign experts’ opinion but the amount claimed is, in my view, excessive.

9.   With those observations and applying a broad brush approach, it seems to me that a reasonable sum to be ordered by way of summary assessment is the sum of $450,000. That is the sum that the plaintiffs have to pay to the defendants by way of costs pursuant to my costs order. Such sum should be paid forthwith.