COSIMO BORRELLI as Trustee of the SFC LITIGATION TRUST v. ALLEN TAK YUEN CHAN

HCMP 2174/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2174 OF 2014

_______________

_______________

_____________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_____________________________

1. On 23 January 2015, at the conclusion of the hearing of an application by Hu Liang Mei, Chan Wing Yan Grace and Chan Wing See Joyce (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Third Parties”) for an extension of time to comply with a disclosure order contained in paragraph 3 of an earlier order made by me on 9 January 2015 (“the Order”), I made an order that the Third Parties shall pay the costs of the application to the plaintiff to be assessed summarily and not on the fixed costs basis. I also gave directions for the plaintiff to lodge and serve his costs statements, and for the Third Parties to lodge their objections to the plaintiff’s costs statements.

2. I have received the plaintiff’s costs statements and the Third Parties’ objections, and this is my summary assessment of the plaintiff’s costs.  The plaintiff seeks costs in the total sum of HK$93,190, which sum is made up of four parts:

(1)   Manual work ($2,740).

(2)   Communications, including conferences, telephone calls and letters with client, counsel and the other side ($21,300).

(3)   Professional work, including preparation of documents, review of documents, preparation for hearing and attending hearing ($25,150).

(4)   Disbursements – brief to counsel ($44,000).

3. As mentioned in the decision, a disclosure order in aid of a Mareva injunction is part of the interim mandatory injunction carrying the contempt sanction for non‑compliance, and an application for an extension of time to comply with a disclosure order is not just any time summons.  I also expressed the view that I considered the plaintiff was entitled to raise the issue of “unless order” and to instruct counsel to attend the hearing.

4. I consider that there is force in the Third Parties’ objections that it was quite unnecessary for this application to involve both a partner and an assistant solicitor with 12 years and two years post‑qualification experience, having regard to the involvement of counsel and the fact that the basis and justification for an unless order was primarily a matter for legal submissions, and it was unnecessary for two solicitors to attend the hearing on behalf of the plaintiff.  The time spent by the plaintiff’s solicitors in attending on the Third Parties’ solicitors and in reviewing documents also seems to me to be on the high side. 

5. On the other hand, I consider counsel’s brief fee to be reasonable.

6. I bear in mind the principle of proportionality, and that taxation on a party‑to‑party basis is not intended to provide a complete indemnity of the costs to the winning side.  It is important that litigation costs be kept to a reasonable level and in proportion to the nature and significance of the application in question.

7. In all, I would summarily assess the plaintiff’s costs in the sum of $65,000.