SUN YAN v. SUPERB JADE LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 813/2014

[2020] HKCFI 260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 813 OF 2014

________________________

________________________
(by Original Action)

(by Counterclaim)
________________________

_________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_________________________________

1.  This is the summary assessment of costs in respect of the costs order I made on 20 November 2018.

2.  By the summons dated 5 July 2018 (“the Summons”) taken out by the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th Defendants in the Original Action (“the Relevant Defendants”) against the Plaintiff in the Original Action (“the Plaintiff”), the Relevant Defendants asked the court to order the Plaintiff to provide further and better particulars of his Reply to the Defence of the 4^th Defendant in the Original Action.

3.  The first hearing took place before me on 12 October 2018 which was attended by counsel on both sides.  I adjourned the Summons for substantive hearing before me on 21 November 2018 with 1 hour reserved.

4.  On 15 November 2018, the Plaintiff filed an answer to the Relevant Defendants’ request for further and better particulars.

5.  Shortly before the substantive hearing, the parties agreed to dispose of the Summons by way of consent summons dated 20 November 2018, under which they agreed for the court not to make any order under the Summons, and that the Plaintiff would pay to the Relevant Defendants the cost of and occasioned by the Summons which would be summarily assessed.  On the same day, I made an order in terms of the consent summons.

6.  This is the summary assessment of such costs.

7.  The Relevant Defendants filed the Statement of Costs dated 22 November 2018 claiming for costs in the sum of $127,974.

8.  The Plaintiff filed the List of Objections on 29 November 2018.  The Plaintiff claims a deduction of $90,086.

9.  After pursuing the List of Objections, the differences between the parties lie mainly on quantum rather than matters on principle such as whether counsel should be engaged to handle the application.

10.  In my judgment, the amount claimed by the Relevant Defendants is on the high side, in particular the time engaged in the perusal of documents is obviously excessive.  On the other hand, the amount of deduction claimed by the Plaintiff is unreasonable.  For example, $5,000 is much too low for the counsel’s fee even for the purpose of attending the call-over hearing on 12 October 2018.  Counsel had to get herself acquainted with the application even on the call-over hearing, in particular such hearing was attended by counsel on both sides.  On the whole, I find that the amount of the counsel’s fee claimed is reasonable.

11.  As summary assessment of the Relevant Defendants’ costs, I reduce the amount claimed by about 20%.  The amount assessed is therefore $102,000.