CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

HCMP 1574/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO1574 OF 2016

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  By a decision dated 6 January 2017 (“the Decision”), this court struck out a signed affirmation of one Li Xianguo and the opinion of a PRC lawyer, both exhibited to an affirmation of a trainee solicitor of Deacons. This court ordered, on a nisi basis, that the Zhangs do bear the plaintiffs’ costs, summarily assessed in the sum of $500,000.

2.  The Zhangs now apply to vary the costs order nisi.  They seek taxation or reduction of the assessed amount.  For an interlocutory application, I see no reason for taxation.

3.  As to quantum, Mr Wou’s complaints as to form of the costs statement have now been remedied. 

4.  I am of the view, as before, that there was no justification for 2 fee earners, since senior counsel has been engaged.  I therefore allow the costs of Ms Evelyn Chan but with no change to her hourly rates.

5.  Ms Evelyn Chan explained that although only Mr Barlow SC appeared at the hearing, Ms Rachel Lam has been assisting him in the preparation but did not appear for the hearing due to other engagements.

6.  However, even Ms Evelyn Chan suggested that the underlying summons was simple and the plaintiffs considered it justified to proceed to full arguments at the call over hearing.  Deacons had offered to adjourn the call over hearing on 16 December 2016 in view of another call over hearing 5 days later on another matter.  The offer was rejected by the plaintiffs.  It turned out that the court did not deal with the strike-out summons on 16 December 2016.  That direction hearing dealt with 4 matters (sequestration, directions, strike-out and setting aside).  I do not see why the Zhangs should be asked to bear the costs of 16 December 2016 except for $800.

7.  Looking at the matter in the round, the original sum assessed was much on the high side.  I vary the assessment and reduce the amount to $300,800, inclusive of the fees of Ms Rachel Lam.

8.  Since the Zhangs are successful in obtaining variation, they should get the costs of this application. 

9.  Although the variation application is heard with another summons related to an intended appeal, there is no justification for engaging counsel for variation of costs.  There are no matters of principle involved and the grounds in objection do not require input of counsel.  There is also no justification for engagement of 2 fee earners on Zhangs’ side except for some supervision costs to the partner.  Objections to summary assessment are equally summary in nature. 

10.  I order the plaintiffs to pay costs of $12,000 to the Zhangs, to be set off against the costs awarded to the plaintiffs.  The Zhangs shall pay a net amount $288,800 to the plaintiffs.