MIDLAND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. LO MAN KUI

HCA 1599/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1599 OF 2010

____________

__________________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________________

1.  Parties have agreed to adopt the option under Order 62 Rule 9A(b) to deal with the costs of the application for injunction. Skeleton bill of costs was prepared and served by the Defendant and this court has comments from the parties on the bill.

2.  Like a summary assessment under Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b), an assessment under Rule 9A should be a summary process.  It is not meant to be a mini-taxation and the skeleton bill provided to the court should not be in the same format as a bill used for taxation purposes.  Practice Direction 14.3 is applicable.  The skeleton bill should be in the format of Appendix A to that practice direction.

3.  Unfortunately, both the Plaintiffs and the Defendant proceeded as if it were a mini-taxation.  The skeleton bill of the Defendant is more like a bill for taxation and not in the format of Appendix A.  The comments of the Plaintiffs were prepared along the line of a List of Objections for taxation purposes.  The solicitors have not paid any regard to Practice Direction 14.3.

4.  This court is not minded to conduct a mini-taxation.  However, having read the documents submitted by the parties, instead of increasing costs and delay by directing that proper skeleton bill and comments be submitted, I will assess the costs of the Defendant for the injunction application under Order 62 Rule 9A(b) at $950,000.

5.  In the light of what I said above, neither party should get the costs of the preparation of the skeleton bill and the submissions on costs pursuant thereto.  I also see no reason why the solicitors should be entitled to charge such costs against their respective clients.