KWOK KA MAN BARBARA AND ANOTHER v. LI YUK LAN AND ANOTHER

HCA 320/2020

[2021] HKCFI 2986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 320 OF 2020

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  On 30 August 2021, I handed down Judgment in this matter.  I found in favour of the Plaintiffs with respect to some, but not all, of their claims, and invited submissions from the parties on costs.  I now determine the question of costs.

2.  The Plaintiffs’ position is that costs should follow the event, and they originally submitted that they should have all their costs.  The Defendants accept the general principle that costs follow the event, but contend that there should be a substantial discount on costs to which the Plaintiffs are entitled, and that the Plaintiffs should only be awarded 1/3 of their costs of the proceedings.  Further, the Defendants ask for the Plaintiffs’ costs to be taxed on the District Court scale on the basis that the amount of damages awarded to the Plaintiffs falls within the District Court jurisdiction.  In reply, the Plaintiffs submit that they should be entitled to at least half of the costs of the proceedings as they succeeded with respect to more or less half of the amount they had claimed, though the Plaintiffs agree to costs being awarded on the District Court scale.

3.  The parties are in agreement that the principles on costs are summarised in Cheng Ka Shing v Bonus Plus Company Limited [2020] HKCFI 828, §§6-12, 20.

4.  In my view, there is some force in the Defendants’ submissions that: (1) the Plaintiffs adjusted their case by way of their written Opening only three days before trial, in particular abandoning their claim for loss of profits based on 8 years as well as their claim for expenses that they had incurred; and (2) the Defendants had spent costs and time in gathering and examining evidence with respect to such matters which no longer had to be determined as a result of the Plaintiffs’ adjustments to their case shortly before trial.

5.  Having considered the papers before me in order to assess the increase in the costs and length of time spent on preparing for trial resulting from the way the Plaintiffs had pursued their case until three days before trial, and without trying to quantify the same to any precise extent, it seems to me that the overall justice of the case is that a reduction of 35% of the Plaintiffs’ costs would be appropriate.

6.  Thus, I order that 65% of the costs of the action be to the Plaintiffs, to be taxed on the District Court scale if not agreed, and with certificate for counsel.