XCHRX M.K. LAM & CO. (a firm) v. MING KEE SHIPPING SERVICE (FAR EAST) CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

HCA20485/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.20485 OF 1998

----------------------

--------------------

-------------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------

1. This is a gross sum assessment pursuant to my Order made at the end of the trial whereby I ordered that if the parties cannot agree on the actual costs that should be payable by each side to the other, then I would do a gross sum assessment.

2. The competing costs are those claimed by the 2nd defendant against the plaintiff in relation to the costs of the action as awarded by me and the costs claimed by the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant in relation to the application for amendment of the pleadings. At the end of the day, of course there should be a set-off but the 2nd defendant's figures of costs are likely to be much larger than the plaintiff's costs figures.

3. The 2nd defendant have put to the plaintiff by way of a letter dated 22 June 2001, the costs of the action in a total sum of about $550,000 made up of profit costs of $265,950, photocopying charges of $16,000 and counsel fees of about $280,000. The plaintiff's claim for costs is for $120,000 made up roughly by $50,000 for profit costs and $70,000 for counsel fees.

4. Various objections were taken by Mr Kam, solicitor for the plaintiff, at the hearing before me as to the extravagant claims for costs of the 2nd defendant. There is objection taken as to the length of time, the seniority of the solicitors, the unit charge and so on and so forth, a litany of complaints.

5. In my view, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances and the fact that this case had been in my court during the whole period of the trial for many, many days, I would disallow only a small part of what is claimed. I assess by way of gross sum assessment, the profit costs of the 2nd defendant for the action in the sum of $200,000, photocopying charges in the sum of $15,000 and total counsel fees in the sum of $250,000. Therefore, I would assess the total figure of the costs of the action to be payable by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant in the sum of $465,000.

6. On the other hand, so far as the plaintiff's costs claim against the 2nd defendant is concerned, it is a claim for an amendment, which is not a particularly complicated amendment, and should not keep counsel and solicitors engaged for that long, and I assess that claim by the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant for the amendment costs to be in the figure of $50,000.

7. So, therefore, the net figure payable by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendants, which I have determined by way of gross sum assessment, is $415,000. This is the sum which the plaintiff should pay to the 2nd defendant and to be paid forthwith.