HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM) v. CHRIS AU AND ANOTHER

HCA 3030/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 3030 OF 2015

___________________

___________________

______________________________________

DECISION ON SUMMARY
ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

______________________________________

Introduction

1.  In my judgment handed down on 3 March 2017, I ordered that the worldwide Mareva injunction against D1 be varied and continued until further order and I also made a disclosure order auxiliary to and in aid of the Mareva injunction.  There was an order nisi that P has the costs of the application and the hearing.  Subsequently, the parties agree and ask that costs be dealt with by way of summary assessment.  P has since filed their Statement of Costs and D1 has filed their objections.  I have considered those and the following is my assessment on a summary basis.

The Proceedings

2.  My costs order covers the following:

(i) P’s application by summons dated 21 November 2016;

(ii) the ex parte hearing before Lam J on 18 November 2016;

(iii) the inter partes hearing before DHCJ Fung, SC on 25 November 2016; and

(iv) the substantive inter partes hearing before me on 21 February 2017.

A: Fee Earners’ Rates

3.  P claims fees for 5 fee earners as follows:

Fee Earner	Year of Admission	Hourly Rate
Partner (GHT)	1998 (HK)	$4,000
Senior Associate (ML)	2013 (HK), 2008(NSW)	$3,500
Associate (RH)	2012 (HK)	$3,000
Registered Foreign Lawyer (HE)	(NSW 2016)	$2,000
Litigation Clerk (P)	--	$1,000

4.  I note that there is no objection to the rate of GHT. 

5.  As regards ML and RH, in view of their respective year of admission in Hong Kong and the objection taken, I would allow an hourly rate of $2,500 for ML and $2,200 for RH respectively.

6.  As regards HE, I do not agree that his involvement is unreasonable.  Besides, I allow him $2,000 per hour.

7.  However, I take the point that it is exceptional for four solicitors to be involved in the same application like the present one. Therefore, I would take that into account when I assess the total number of hours claimed by the fee earners under each of the following heads and make adjustments accordingly.

B: Manual Work

8.  There is no objection to photocopying charges ($2,000).  However, objections were made to the total number of attendances by the litigation clerk for filing ($5,000) and serving ($2,000).

9.  Having considered the file, I allow a total of $5,000 under this head.

C: Communication including conferences, phone calls and letters

10.  The total amount claimed under this head is $20,500.  There is no objection in relation to the time spent by GHT, ML and RH. However, adjustments have to be made regarding the hourly rates of ML and RH respectively.  I note the objection in relation to the time spent by HE (0.5 hours with D’s solicitors and 1.5 hours with banks). 

11.  Taking into account the total time spent by the fee earners, I make a slight adjustment and allow a round figure of $18,000 under this head.

D: Professional work - ex parte hearing before Lam J

12.  P claimed a total of $150,250 for the professional work of GHT, RH, HE and P.  As I said, adjustments have to be made regarding the hourly rate of RH.  The bulk of the preparation work was undertaken by HE.  However, the latter alone claimed a total of 37 hours and that seems excessive to me for an application of the present nature and level of complexity.

13.  Having considered the matter, I allow a total of $110,000 under this head.

E: Professional work – inter partes hearing before DHCJ Fung, SC

14.  P claimed a total of $67,500 for the professional work of GHT, RH & HE.  As I said, there should be a downward adjustment for the hourly rate of RH.

15.  I note that a further affidavit and written submissions were filed for that hearing.  I allow a total of $45,000 under this head.

F: Professional work – inter partes hearing before me

16.  P claimed a total of $151,375 for the professional work of GHT, ML and P.  As aforesaid, the hourly rate for ML has to be adjusted downward.  Although it was a substantive hearing with further affidavit evidence, written submissions and hearing bundles filed, the total number of hours claimed, in particular those by ML alone (33.25 hours) seems excessive to me.  Also, some of the preparation should have been covered by the work done before.

17.  Having considered the case and the documents filed, I allow $100,000 under this head.

G: Counsel’s fees

18.  This was for the half day hearing before me. Counsel charged a total of $95,000 all inclusive.  That is on the high side for an application of this nature and given the ground work that had been done by the fee earners.

19.  I allow $75,000 under this head.

Conclusion

20.  Therefore, by way of summary assessment, the costs to P is assessed as follows:

	B	$5,000
	C	$18,000
	D	$110,000
	E	$45,000
	F	$100,000
	G	$75,000	Total: $353,000