THE REGISTRAR OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS v. CHEUNG YIU HUNG

CACV 142/2017

[2018] HKCA 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM the Disciplinary Committee of the Hong Kong
Institute of Certified Public Accountants Proceedings No. D-15-1049P)

________________________

________________________

__________________

____________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________________

Hon Yuen JA:

1.  On 31 July 2018, this court gave judgment dismissing Mr Cheung’s appeal from the sanctions imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Committee of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“HKICPA”) with costs, both parties having agreed at the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal that costs should follow the event. That was not an order nisi.

2.  On 9 August 2018, the Registrar of the HKICPA (“the Registrar”) filed a summons asking that the “costs order nisi ... be varied” to an order that the costs of the appeal be paid by Mr Cheung as assessed by summary assessment on the papers and be payable forthwith.  A statement of costs for summary assessment under Order 62 rule 9A was enclosed. 

3.  On 10 August 2018, the Registrar of Civil Appeals gave directions that Mr Cheung should inform the court on or before 20 August 2018 whether he agreed to have the costs of the appeal assessed summarily and be payable forthwith.  Consequential directions were also given on the basis that he (a) agreed or (b) not agreed with the proposal.

4.  On 15 August 2018, solicitors instructed by Mr Cheung wrote to the court to say that Mr Cheung agreed to have the costs of the appeal assessed summarily and be payable forthwith. Grounds of objection were included.

5.  As the order of the court of 31 July 2018 was not an order nisi (as both parties had agreed at the conclusion of the hearing that costs should follow the event, and the order was not expressed as an order nisi), the summons filed by the Registrar to “vary” the “order nisi” was incorrect.

6.  Nevertheless, in view of the positions taken by both parties, the court shall treat the summons as a consent summons that there be summary assessment of the costs of the appeal. 

7.  Having considered the statement of costs, the grounds of objection and a letter dated 16 August 2018 from the solicitors for the Registrar containing a clarification, we take the view that a reasonable sum would be $120,000.