XCHRX CHOY BING WING t/a BING CHOY & ASSOCIATES v. THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.

CACV151/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO.151 OF 1998

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCT NO.8 OF 1992)

--------------

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. I would dismiss the plaintiff's application for a review of the taxing master's decision.

2. The issues are clearly identified in the decision of the master. Of the complaints, first the master clearly was entitled to reach a decision on the hourly rate of the plaintiff by reference to the bills he had tendered for work in the years 1982, 1987, 1988 and 1989. The master had adjusted the rates by increase in inflation in the period 1996 to 1998. The fact that the plaintiff has 30 years of experience as an engineer does not mean that he is entitled to charge $4,000 per hour as submitted by him for the purpose of taxation. The plaintiff had not produced any evidence of his fees for recent years. After all, according to Order 62, rule 28(A)(2) of the High Court Rules, the amount allowed shall be such sum as the taxing master thinks fit, not exceeding two third of the sum which, in his opinion, would have been allowed in respect of that item if the plaintiff had been represented by a solicitor. The plaintiff attempted to introduce a schedule of fees of the Institute of Engineer. This is not produced in evidence previously. The production was objected to by the defendant. I ruled that such evidence was inadmissible for the purpose of this review. In any event, as I said, the plaintiff had not provided further evidence as to the scale of fees he charged in recent years and the master was clearly entitled to rely on the previous fee notes in working out the plaintiff's hourly rate.

3. Second, the claim for business loss is clearly not recoverable in taxation.

4. Third, as to the hourly rate of the expert, Mr Woo, the master was, in my view, entitled to assess the rates by reference to the plaintiff's rates and then adjust them upwards to take into account the experience of Mr Woo. The plaintiff again had not provided further evidence in relation to Mr Woo's charges.

5. Accordingly, the application is dismissed with costs to the defendant.