|
CACV 84/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 84 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCB 8025/2013)
_______________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
LI CHUNG YAN HILDA (李頌欣) |
Appellant |
and |
| |
THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED |
Respondent |
_______________
AND
CACV 86/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 86 OF 2015
(ON APPEAL FROM HCB 8023/2013)
_______________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
MANN KEVIN PATRICK |
Appellant |
| and |
| |
THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED |
Respondent |
_______________
(HEARD TOGETHER)
| Before : Cheung JA and Poon JA in Court |
| Dates of Written Submissions on Costs : 5 and 23 October and 2 November 2015 |
| Date of Decision on Costs : 12 November 2015 |
______________________________
DECISION ON COSTS
______________________________
Hon Poon JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court) :
1. This is the summary assessment of the costs claimed by the respondent for its applications for security for costs.
2. We have considered the respondent’s bill of costs dated 5 October 2015 and the parties’ submissions filed pursuant to our directions.
3. We accept that the costs claimed by the respondent are covered by the indemnity costs provision in the Guarantee dated 10 March 2010. It means that all costs are to be allowed except those unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount, the respondent as the receiving party being giving the benefit of any doubt : see Hong Kong Civil Procedure, 2016 Edition, Vol 1, paragraph 62/App/11 at p 1233. In assessing the respondent’s costs, we take into account the two fee earners’ hourly rate, their experience and expertise and the issues involved in the applications.
4. We think that the hourly rates adopted by the two handling solicitors are reasonable and will allow their rates in full.
5. Part B of the bill of costs concerns mechanical work. The rates are all set by the rules or charged by the court. They are allowed in full.
6. On Part C, we think the time claimed by RNHC (12.5 hours) is unreasonably excessive. It is reduced to 8 hours. The time charged by NSML (1 hour) is reasonable and is allowed in full.
7. The sub-total allowed under Part C is $28,768.00 (RNHC) + $4,794.00 (NSML) = $33,562.00.
8. On Part D, we also consider the time charged by RNHC (13.5 hours) to be unreasonably excessive. It is reduced to 8.5 hours.
9. The time charged by NSML (1 hour) is reasonable and is allowed in full.
10. The sub-total allowed for the two solicitors is $30,566.00 (RNHC) + $8,149.80 (NSML) = $38,715.80.
11. Counsel fees ($15,000.00) are reasonable and are allowed in full.
12. So the total fees that we allow is $5,489.90 (Part B) + $33,562.00 (Part C) + $38,715.80 + $15,000.00 (Part D) = $92,767.70.
13. We will round it up to $92,770.00 and order the applicants to pay that sum to the respondent as costs of the two applications for security for costs.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Jeremy Poon) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Mayer Brown JSM, for the respondent
The appellant (in CACV 84/2015) : Li, Chung Yan Hilda (李頌欣), in person
The appellant (in CACV 86/2015) : Mann, Kevin Patrick, in person
|