ZHANG LAN AND OTHERS v. HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM)

HCMP 285/2016

[2018] HKCFI 1531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 285 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

________________________

___________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

___________________________________

1.  This is the summary assessment of costs in respect of the costs order I made on 28 March 2018.

2.  The background of this case has been set out in my Reasons for Decision and Decision dated 3 March 2017 (“the Decision”), and I do not want to repeat the same here.

3.  I would adopt the same abbreviations that I used in the Decision.

4.  By the consent order dated 28 March 2017, I ordered, inter alia, that:

(i) the Applicants do pay to the Respondent 75% of the costs of the appeal against the order of Master Chow dated 22 April 2016 (“the Appeal”);

(ii) the costs of the Stay Summons be to the Respondent; and

(iii) the costs of the Lifting of Stay Summons be to the Applicants.

5.  The parties agreed for all such costs to be summarily assessed on papers.

6.  For the Appeal, the Respondent claims total costs in the amount of $189,847.50.  For the Stay Summons, the Respondent claims total costs in the amount of $105,700.

7.  For the Lifting of Stay Summons, the Applicants claim total costs in the amount of $90,097.

8.  For the Appeal, I allow Mr Julian Copeman to claim an hourly rate of $4,000.  However, taking into account such seniority, the time claimed by the Respondent is certainly excessive, in particular the Appeal was a rehearing of the Applicants’ application for taxation.  The times involved in the perusal of documents and the preparation for the rehearing are excessive, and I doubt whether the Appeal justifies the involvement of so many fee earners.   Having considered the nature of the Appeal, I summarily assess 75% of the Respondent’s costs in the sum of $130,000.

9.  For the Stay Summons, I also agree that the costs claimed by the Respondent are excessive.  The summons is not a particularly complicated one.   I only allow a sum of $70,000.

10.  For the Lifting of Stay Summons, by specifying no certificate for counsel, I expressly took the view that it was not necessary to engage counsel to deal with the summons.  However, by not engaging counsel, the court should allow the Applicants’ solicitors to charge more time for the preparation of the hearing.  Items D2 (communication with counsel) and G1 (counsel’s fees) are totally disallowed.    However, I allow an additional sum of $10,000 for the preparation of the application.  The deductions for the other items should not be substantial.  Overall, I summarily assess the Applicants’ costs in the sum of $45,000.