STATEVIEW INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LIU BAOSHUN

HCA 162/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 162 OF 2010

____________

BETWEEN

____________

_____________________________

DECISION ON FURTHER COSTS

_____________________________

1.  In a judgment handed down on 3 November 2010, I decided two interlocutory applications in the defendant’s favour.

2.  The costs of those applications were also awarded to the defendant.  They were later summarily assessed and the parties were informed of the sums so assessed by a letter dated 16 November 2010.

3.  The assessed costs were finally paid by the plaintiff on 6 December 2010 (about 3 weeks after 16 November).

4.  The defendant contends that the plaintiff should pay a further sum of about $9,000 for work done in making repeated demands for payment and applying by letter of 26 November 2010 for the assessed costs to be paid out of the amount of security for costs earlier deposited with court by the plaintiff (and other related relief).

5.  The plaintiff disputes the validity of the said contention, arguing that because cross-border payment has to be arranged by the plaintiff, the 3-week or so delay in payment did not justify the premature application.  It is submitted the defendant should not be entitled to any further costs; alternatively, those costs should be substantially reduced.

6.  I agree with the plaintiff and disagree with the defendant to the extent that the overall circumstances leading to the payment of the assessed costs did not warrant the extensive work undertaken by the defendant.  I consider the proper amount of work to take two-thirds of an hour by a solicitor at an hourly rate of $3,000.

7.  For that reason, there will be an order that the plaintiff is to pay to the defendant $2,000.