LIE HAN JI v. THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

CACV 265/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 265 of 2009

(ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE
OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS DATED
20 OCTOBER 2009 AND 13 MARCH 2010)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1. This is an application to vary the costs order nisi made by me on 7 October 2013.

2. The parties agree for the application to be dealt with by way of papers.

3. The background of this case and the reasons of the court in refusing the appellant’s application for extension of time for review by setting aside the Allocatur have already been set out in my Reasons for Decision dated 7 October 2013, and I do not want to repeat the same here.

4. As the appellant’s appeal does not succeed, the normal rule is for costs to follow the event and the appellant should pay for the respondent’s costs of the appeal against the master’s decision.

5. I agree with the respondent that the points made by the appellant to vary the costs order nisi are a repetition of the points already made by the appellant on many previous occasions.  These arguments have been rejected by the courts before, and they are not relevant in determining the issue of costs in respect of the appellant’s appeal before me, which relates only to the taxation of the respondent’s costs and not to the substantive appeal against the decisions of the Disciplinary Committee of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  Further, there is simply no basis for the appellant to suggest that s 41 of the Professional Accountants Ordinance (Cap 50) would have the effect of disallowing the respondent to recover costs in defending the appeal.  As I see it, there is no justification for the court to depart from the general rule and so I refuse the appellant’s application to vary the costs order nisi.  The order is therefore made absolute.

6. The respondent has also asked for summary assessment of costs.

7. In support of the application, the respondent submits a statement of costs in the sum of $31,600.  Despite the sum stated in the statement, the respondent only asks for costs in the amount of $15,000.

8. Taking into account that time would have to be spent by the respondent’s legal advisers in: (i) perusing the lengthy documents submitted by the appellant; (ii) preparing the submissions in the hearing to deal with the various arguments put forward by the appellant; and (iii) attending the hearing itself, I am of the view that the amount of costs claimed by the respondent is reasonable.  I therefore summarily assess the respondent’s costs of the appeal in the sum of $15,000.