|
HCA004497/2000
HCA4497/2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO.4497 OF 2000
-------------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
LI MAN TAK also known as MICHAEL LI |
1st Plaintiff |
|
LOW CHI HANG |
2nd Plaintiff |
|
|
|
|
AND |
|
|
|
|
|
LAM YAT PING also known as HENRY LAM |
1st Defendant |
|
REALTEC TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY Operated by GOLDEN NETWORK INVESTMENT CO. LTD |
2nd Defendant |
------------------------
Coram: Hon Waung J in Court
Dates of Hearing: 23 October 2000
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2000
----------------------
J U D G M E N T
----------------------
1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for costs ordered by me earlier resulting from the defendants making an application to substantially amend their pleadings. As a result of the amendment which I have allowed, it would be necessary for the plaintiffs to amend their Reply and to consider their position, including whether it would be necessary to put in further witness statements. The case has therefore been adjourned until Thursday, 26 October 2000, when the trial would resume.
2. I have ordered the costs of and occasioned by the amendment and thrown away as a result of the amendment to be given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have put before me, very neatly on one page, three items which they suggested should be recoverable costs under my order :
|
|
|
$
|
| (1) |
Costs alleged to be thrown away as a result of the plaintiffs' opening their case and work done on 19 October 2000 : |
|
|
(a) |
Barrister's cost |
40,000 |
|
(b) |
Solicitor of 10 years' seniority for one hour at $4,000/hour |
4,000 |
|
|
|
|
| (2) |
Costs of today, 23 October 2000 : |
|
|
(a) |
Barrister's cost |
40,000 |
|
(b) |
Solicitor of 10 years' seniority for six hours at $4,000/hour |
24,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(uncontested) |
|
|
|
|
|
| (3) |
Costs of 25 October 2000 : |
|
|
(a) |
Barrister's cost |
40,000 |
|
(b) |
Solicitor of 10 years' seniority for two hours at $4,000/hour |
8,000 |
|
|
Total : |
$156,000 |
3. In my view, so far as the first day is concerned, i.e. the cost alleged to be thrown away as a result of the wasted plaintiffs' opening, I think there is some justification in Mr Pow's submission that it is not wholly thrown away. I would allow half of that, i.e. $22,000. Item (2) is not contested and therefore, I would allow the whole of item (2), i.e. $64,000. In relation to item (3), Mr Pow made the point that it is a little bit premature today because we do not know what work is going to be done on Wednesday, 25 October. I think, doing the best I can and noting the nature of the case, that the whole day would be devoted to doing what is necessary in relation to meeting and answering the amendment made by the defendants. So I would allow the whole of that. The costs, therefore, that I would allow is :
$156,000 - $22,000 = $134,000
As I have indicated earlier, I would give 90% of the $134,000. So the plaintiffs will receive by way of gross sum assessment the sum of $120,600, to be paid forthwith.
|
(William Waung) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Representation:
Mr Aarif Barma & Mr Sanjay Sakhrani, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the Plaintiffs
Mr Jason Pow, instructed by Messrs David Lo & Partners, for the Defendant
Court
Procedural posture
Issues
Holdings
Legal principles
Disposition
|