AU WING LUN v. TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS

HCA 811/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 811 OF 2007

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is a taxation of costs review application of the plaintiff.

2. The review application summons is riddled with errors about the reference to the number of the bill of costs and the identity of the Judge who granted the costs order.  Despite the errors and inaccuracies in the summons, one can still distil the gist of the plaintiff’s intended application.

3. The plaintiff was formerly a consultant solicitor of Messrs Kong & Associates.  He used to represent the 1^st defendant in a probate proceeding (HCAP 2 of 2004) in which the 1^st defendant sought to contest the validity of the will of her late daughter Anita MUI.  The 2^nd defendant is the son of the 1^st defendant.  In the course of the litigation the 1^st defendant terminated the plaintiff’s retainer and engaged the 3^rd defendant as her solicitors on 11 April 2007.

4. Twelve days after the termination of his retainer by the 1^st defendant the plaintiff commenced the present action against the three defendants on 23 April 2007.  In his writ the plaintiff claimed against the three defendants, inter alia, for breach of 1^st defendant’s undertaking to engage the legal service of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s legal team.

5. In his 25-paged statement of claim, the plaintiff set out an account in gist of how he engaged Mr. Josip Ma (a person who no longer has a practicing certificate to practice as a solicitor) to provide legal service to the 1^st and 2^nd defendants through a company known as Sino Rich Consultants Limited.

6. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff in his statement of claim were: -

(i)  a declaration that the 1^st and 2^nd defendants are in breach of their undertaking;

(ii)    a declaration that the 1^st and 2^nd defendants violated the plaintiff’s professional right;

(iii)  a declaration that the 1^st and 2^nd defendants obtained the plaintiff’s professional services and credit term by deception;

(iv)  a declaration that the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants had conspired together to unlawfully attack both the plaintiff’s personal/professional honour and reputation;

(v)    a declaration that the 3^rd defendant has unlawfully induced the 1^st and 2^nd defendants to breach and/or violate the undertaking and/or the plaintiff’s professional right;

(vi)  damages;

(vii)    punitive damages;

(viii)  costs on full indemnity basis; and

(ix)  such other and further relief as the court deems just and reasonable.

7. On 11 May 2007 the plaintiff took out an interlocutory application for

(i) A prohibitive injunction to restrain the 1^st defendant from committing or continuing the breach of her undertaking not to change the firm of solicitors without good reasons;

(ii)   Alternatively, a mandatory injunction to compel the 1^st defendant to re-appoint the plaintiff and/or the plaintiff’s firm to act for the 1^st defendant in HCAP 2/2004;

(iii) Alternatively, a prohibitive injunction to restrain the 1^st defendant from giving her consent not to contest HSBCITL propounding the will without giving enough security for full settlement of the legal professional fees of the plaintiff and his legal team; and

(iv)    an urgent examination by the Court on the mental health of the 1^st defendant under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

8. In short the plaintiff was seeking the orders of Court to compel the 1^st defendant to re-engage the plaintiff as her legal representative in the probate proceeding HCAP 2/2004; and for an order that the 1^st defendant be medically examined in respect of her mental capacity.

9. The application was heard by Mr. Justice Poon on 13 July 2007 who gave judgment on the same day and said: -

“  20.   Applying for the 1^st and 2^nd injunction, Mr. Au is in effect asking the court to compel the mother, supposedly a former client, against her wish and strong objection to re-instruct him to act for her in the Probate Action.  This is objectionable for two main reasons.

   21.    First, a solicitor provides personal service to his client. When his client terminates his retainer, the solicitor-client relationship comes to an end.  A solicitor cannot insist that his client must continue to instruct him, let alone asking the court to compel his client to do so.  Put differently, he cannot ask for specific performance of his retainer.  For it is trite that as a general rule, a contract of or involving personal service cannot be enforced by specific performance.

   22.    Secondly, a solicitor-client relationship is built on mutual trust and confidence.  Plainly, the relationship between Mr. Au and the mother, together with the requisite trust and confidence which is essential to the relationship, has completely collapsed.  In my view, the rent in the parties’ relationship is so deep that it is simply impossible for the mother to continue to place any trust or confidence in Mr. Au.  When that very basis is gone, how can Mr. Au continue to act for the mother in the Probate Action?  Mr. Au suggested that he can do so and protect her interests without taking instructions from her and despite her objection.  This is simply nonsensical.  It defies common sense, rocks the very foundation of a solicitor-client relationship and destroys the very freedom that a client enjoys in choosing his own lawyer.  It is indeed the most absurd submission that I have ever heard.  It really appals me that such a suggestion could have come from the mouth of a practicing solicitor.

   23.    For these reasons, the application for the 1^st injunction and the 2^nd injunction must fail.

   24.    ……

   25.    As to the Examination Order, contrary to Mr. Au’s submission, the court does not have inherent jurisdiction to order the mother to attend a mental health examination.  In any event, Mr. Au’s submission that the mother has gone crazy because of her frequent change of solicitors and making false allegations in her affirmations and wild allegations against him, is untenable.  That sort of behaviour alone does not even begin to establish a prima facie case the mother is suffering from any mental disorder.

   26.    For the above reasons, I will dismiss the Injunction Application.

   27.    This is a wholly unmeritorious application. It is indeed an abuse of process.  I will order costs against Mr. Au on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed and to be paid forthwith.”

10. Pursuant to the costs order granted by Mr. Justice Poon, the 1^st defendant filed her bill of costs on 28 September 2007.  The 1^st defendant was acting in person throughout this proceeding.  With the assistance of an assistant she filed a home made itemized bill giving various dates of the time she and her assistant spent in the preparation of the affidavits and her other heads of expenses.

11. Whilst in court, with the consent of the plaintiff, leave was granted to the 1^st defendant’s son Mr. Peter Mui (2^nd defendant in this action) to speak on behalf of the 1^st defendant (84 years old) on account of the 1^st defendant’s old age and frailty.

12. In addition to the itemized bill, the 1^st defendant has also prepared a gross sum bill with the help of her assistant.  In this gross sum bill there were 5 heads of costs, which are respectively: -

(i) a total of 433 working hours charged at HK$200 per hour, making a total of HK$86,600;

(ii)   Photocopying charges of HK$1,447.50 for 965 pages of copied materials;

(iii) Transportation fees of HK$2,832;

(iv)    Medical expenses of HK$80,000 in respect of the 1^st defendant’s mental health assessment; and

(v)  Miscellaneous expenses in the sum of HK$348.

13. At the first taxation hearing on 24 January 2008, the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Simon Chan of Messrs Simon Chan and Co.  For the rest of the adjourned hearings the plaintiff acted in person.

Taxed Costs Order made on 20 February 2008

14. The 1^st defendant and her assistant no longer keep the papers they used in the preparation for the hearing before Mr. Justice Poon.  In respect of the small items such as transportation expenses and miscellaneous expenditure, for the lack of documentation, the 1^st defendant was prepared to waive those charges and agreed to withdraw those heads of claim.  For the photocopying charges, parties have agreed on the sum of HK$1,000.

15. In light of the above agreement, the items remaining to be taxed can be divided into 2 heads: -

(i)  Expenses incurred in respect of the preparation of a medical report by Dr. Lau on the mental capacity of the 1^st defendant; and

(ii)    costs for the work of the 1^st defendant in preparation for the hearing of the inter-parte summons of 11 May 2007.

16. It would be necessary to bear reference to the filing date as well as the contents of the documents to understand the factual allegations of the plaintiff in his statement of claim and the matters raised in his affirmations for one to assess the reasonableness of the work done in reply to the plaintiff’s application of 11 May 2007.

Chronology

23/4/07	The plaintiff took out a writ of summons, with 25 pages of statement of claim to sue the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants for injunction to compel the 1st defendant to re-engage the plaintiff as her solicitor and for damages to be assessed against the 3rd defendant.
11/5/07	The plaintiff took out an inter-parte summons under Order 29 rule 1 for 4 heads of injunctive reliefs.  This was the summons that was ultimately heard by Mr. Justice Poon on 16 May 2007 and 13 July 2007, the same application which gave rise to the present costs taxation. Together with the summons the plaintiff filed an 18 pages affidavit exhibiting 51 pages of exhibits (excluding the covering pages of the 8 exhibits).
16/5/07	The plaintiff and the 1st defendant appeared before Mr. Justice Poon for 1 hour from 10 am to 11 am in which Mr. Justice Poon made the orders for the parties to file their affirmations and for the summons to be adjourned for argument for 3 hours.
9/6/07	The plaintiff filed his 2nd affirmation of 10 pages exhibiting 86 pages of exhibits (excluding the covering pages of the 11 exhibits).
5/7/07	The 1st defendant filed her affirmation in opposition to the plaintiff’s application.  The affirmation is a 75-paged document.
12/7/07	The plaintiff filed his 3rd affirmation of 17 pages with 12 pages of exhibits (excluding the covering pages of the 2 exhibits).
13/7/07	The plaintiff’s application was heard before Mr. Justice Poon for 2 hours from 10 am to 12 noon.  Mr. Justice Poon delivered his decision on the same day at the conclusion of the hearing.

17. The contents of the above documents can be summarized as follows: -

(A)  Gist of the plaintiff’s statement of claim

18. In his 25 pages of statement of claim of 23 April 2007 the plaintiff set out his liaison with the 1^st and 2^nd defendants and how the plaintiff started to represent the 1^st defendant in her legal contest of her daughter’s will.  The allegations raised by the plaintiff included: -

(i)  the 1^st defendant made public complaint about her daughter dying in suspicious circumstances in the Hong Kong Sanatorium hospital;

(ii)    that the 1^st defendant made allegations of conspiracy between various individuals to cheat and steal the estate of Anita Mui;

(iii)  the 1^st defendant initiated various private criminal prosecutions against different individuals in ESS-13720/2006; ESS-13731/2006 and ESS-29283/2006;

(iv) That the 1^st defendant was unhappy about the legal service provided by her former legal team;

(v)   In October 2007 the plaintiff introduced Mr. Josip Ma and counsel Mr. William Allan to the 1^st defendant in which the 1^st and 2^nd defendants offered to pay Josip Ma a sum of HK$3 million should the 1^st defendant succeed in her probate proceeding with the help of Josip Ma.  The legal service of Josip Ma would be provided through a company Sino Rich Consultants Limited;

(vi) Various steps have been taken by the plaintiff to procure legal advice for the 1^st defendant about the way to proceed with the probate proceeding;

(vii)   On 11 April 2007 the plaintiff suddenly received a letter from the 3^rd defendant informing him that the 1^st defendant has engaged the legal service of the 3^rd defendant instead;

(viii) the plaintiff suggested he has granted over HK$10 million of unsecured credit to the 1^st and 2^nd defendants; and

(ix) there were various events concerning some named legal practitioners in the handling of the 1^st defendant’s probate proceeding.

(B)  Gist of the plaintiff’s 1^st affirmation of 11 May 2007

19. In his affirmation filed on 11 May 2007 the plaintiff made reference to his statement of claim and affirmed to the truth of the facts stated therein.

20. The plaintiff also made reference to the pleadings in HCAP 2/2004 and another High Court action of HCA 909/2007 in which the 1^st defendant of this proceeding was suing Josip Ma and the plaintiff over repayment of money.

21. The plaintiff also made reference to the Legal Aid Ordinance to state a legally aided person would not be allowed to instruct another firm of solicitors without good reasons.

22. It was the plaintiff’s allegation that the 1^st defendant has acted irrationally in changing her legal representation.  The plaintiff therefore urged the court to consider appointing an urgent medical examination on the 1^st defendant concerning her mental capacity.

23. In this affirmation the plaintiff made contentions of conduct impropriety of the 1^st and 2^nd defendants throughout the processing of the probate action and other court proceedings. Included in the exhibits are some newspaper cuttings.

(C)  Gist of the plaintiff’s 2^nd affirmation of 9 June 2007

24. In his 2^nd affirmation the plaintiff related materials of other legal proceedings involving the 1^st and 2^nd defendants, including HCA 1030/2007, HCA 1988/2005 and the bankruptcy proceeding HCB 9736/2006 as well as some newspaper cuttings.

Taxation Assessment

25. Of the remaining 2 heads of contentious costs, my assessment is as follows: -

(A)  Medical Expense

26. In respect of the medical expenses claimed by the 1^st defendant, Mr. Chan on behalf of the plaintiff asked to cross-examine Dr. Lau on the appropriateness of the medical bill of HK$80,000 regarding the 1^st defendant’s medical consultation and the report compilation charges.

27. The issue of mental incapacity was raised by the plaintiff in his inter-parte summons of 11 May 2007.  The plaintiff prayed in the 4^th head of his relief “an urgent examination by the Court on the mental health of the 1^st defendant under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court”.  It is reasonable for the 1^st defendant to secure her own medical evidence to oppose the plaintiff’s application.

28. After hearing Dr. Lau’s evidence in court I am satisfied about Dr. Lau’s testimony that he had agreed the medical fees of HK$80,000 with the 1^st defendant for the compilation of her mental report.  Dr. Lau gave a breakdown of 4 hours of consultation with the 1^st defendant (on 21 May 2007 and on 22 May 2007), 4 hours of research and 9 hours in report compilation.  There is nothing before court to suggest Dr. Lau’s charge was excessive or unreasonable. 

29. Dr. Lau’s instruction covered 2 areas: the 1^st defendant’s mental capacity to give instruction for preparation of her will and to give instruction for her legal proceedings.  In view of the dual purposes for which the report was requested and prepared, I accepted ½ of the medical fees is relevant to the present proceeding.

(B)  Reasonable work done

30. To a legally trained practitioner the factual allegations raised by the plaintiff in his 2 affirmations would likely be superfluous in the adjudication of the plaintiff’s inter-parte summons of 11 May 2007.  Mr. Justice Poon in fact gave no detailed factual analysis of the disputed information contained in the affirmations when arriving at his determination on 13 July 2007.  A legally trained lawyer would likely spend a little time to get a brief chronology of the events from the 1^st defendant to prepare her affirmation in reply and to do a thorough research on any possible chance of success of the plaintiff’s application.

31. To laymen who were untrained in the law, they would likely feel they were obliged to dwell on the colossal whirlpool of factual debate referred to by the plaintiff in his affirmations.  These included the relationship between the plaintiff and the 1^st and 2^nd defendants from the handling of the 1^st defendant’s tenancy litigation in the year of 2005 to a complete breakdown of trust and confidence between them in November 2007 in the handling of the 1^st defendant’s probate litigation; covering a duration of 2 years.

32. With the above background information one starts to understand the type of information which the 1^st defendant, as a lay person, would reasonably be considering when attempting to answer the affirmations of the plaintiff.

33. In her 75 pages of affirmation (which she termed a statement of defence through her ignorance of the law) the 1^st defendant set out her personal background and a brief account of her dealings with the plaintiff and Mr. Josip Ma.  The 1^st defendant also exhibited letters, invoices and newspapers as an intended answer to the plaintiff’s affirmations.

34. There are different basis to a taxation exercise.  These include party and party costs, common fund costs and indemnity costs.

35. When a bill of costs is to be taxed on a party and party basis, all costs that are necessary and proper for the attainment of justice or for defending the rights of the party are allowed.

36. When a bill of costs is to be taxed on an indemnity basis all costs are to be allowed except those unreasonably incurred or the costs incurred are of an unreasonable amount.  The receiving party would be given the benefit of doubt on the reasonableness of the sums [Order 62 rule 28(4A) and EMI Records [1982] 2 All ER 980 at 991].

37. As a litigant acting in person the 1^st defendant did not keep her documentation at the various stages of the work done in the preparation of her affirmation of 5 July 2007.  Nevertheless one cannot deny the fact that she had put together, for what is worth, an affidavit inclusive of exhibits a total of 75 pages.

38. Order 62 rule 28A(2) empowers the court to allow costs at 2/3 of the costs of a solicitor as if the litigant was represented by a solicitor.  Bearing in mind that this is an order for the costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis, the 1^st defendant would inevitably be spending time and suffered financially both in terms of time, effort and expenses in the preparation of her affidavit.  She would also be entitled to engage a lawyer should it be viable for her financially.  I feel it just to adopt the approach empowered under rule 28A(2) for indemnity costs taxation.

39. It was the plaintiff’s grounds of objection that since the costs order obtained by the 1^st defendant was an indemnity costs order, this court should tax the 1^st defendant’s bill item by item.  This court ought not proceed to tax the 1^st defendant’s bill under Order 62 rule 28A(2) to grant the 1^st defendant 2/3 of a solicitor’s costs as if the 1^st defendant was represented by a solicitor.

40. The indemnity principle is of course the very foundation of a usual costs order, i.e. the order is to recuperate the financial loss suffered by the winning party in the litigation.  For a legally represented litigant her expenses would be her out of pocket expenses which she pays to her legal adviser for service and for disbursement.  When the litigant acts in person, there would not be any solicitors’ costs to be paid.  She would be utilizing her own effort and time in the preparation of her own defence.  It is often difficult to quantify her loss financially.

41. The indemnity principle has no application to taxation carried out under Order 62 rule 28A(2) for the obvious reasons that no solicitors have been engaged and the taxation is carried out on the supposed work of a hypothetical solicitor of reasonable competence who is prepared to act and produce the work for the winning party.

42. Deputy High Court Judge A. To in the case of Lam Chi To CACV 354/2001made brief reference to the application of Order 62 rule 28A.

43. Madam Justice Yuen in the Court of Appeal decision of Fook Siu Wing CACV 341/2005 (27 April 2006) gave a run down of the development of the English legislation and the costs entitlement of a litigant acting in person.

44. The Court of Appeal accepts it to be a proper construction of Order 62 rule 28A(2) for rule 28A(2) to be read subject to rule 28A(3).  That is to say, when there is no proof that a litigant suffers pecuniary loss as a result of her preparation of the case she would only be allowed a charge of not more than HK$200 an hour for the work she has done in preparation for the application.

45. The granting of a costs order on an indemnity basis does not oust the application of rule 28(A)(2) in the assessment of the reasonable costs of a party.

46. When a litigant in person has acted to represent herself and has prepared an affidavit in reply through the effort of her own or those of her assistants, it can reasonably be accepted that she and her assistants would have spent time and would likely have suffered a loss of income in respect of the time spent in preparing her affidavit and her reply.

47. When the 1^st defendant kept no documentation nor records for what she has done in the production of her 75 pages of affirmation, it would be a far more accurate assessment of the work required on the assumption that she had been represented by a lawyer in the preparation of her affirmation in reply.  In any event the order the 1^st defendant was awarded here is an indemnity costs order and the taxation yardstick is reasonableness.  Her engagement of a lawyer would have been a reasonable step to take, had she had the funding for the payment of a legal retainer.

48. Bearing in mind the documents filed in court, the works done in relation to the plaintiff’s application for the injunctive reliefs in his summons of 11 May 2007, if done by a solicitor, would have included the following: -

(i)  receiving, attending to and considering the summons of 11 May 2007 – this would likely necessitate 30 minutes;

(ii)    receiving, attending to and considering the 1^st affirmation (69 pages) of the plaintiff filed on 11 May 2007 and the statement of claim (25 pages).  These documents contained various allegations of impropriety of conduct of different individuals, the reasonable time required would be a total of 8 hours;

(iii)  receiving, attending to and considering the 96 pages 2^nd affirmation of the plaintiff filed on 9 June 2007.  The reasonable time required is 5 hours;

(iv) taking instruction and preparing the 1^st defendant’s affirmation of 5 July 2007.  Though a lot of the information contained therein were irrelevant for the purpose of considering the inter-parte summons, a competent solicitor would reasonably require 3 hours to take instruction about the dealings between the 1^st defendant and the plaintiff to understand their relationship which give rise to the present claim, and another 3 hours for the drafting and preparation of the affirmation in reply by the 1^st defendant.  As the plaintiff’s claim is both novel as well as unprecedented, a reasonable reply would be to deal briefly with all salient facts, with a certain portion of time spent on researching into the legal relationship between solicitor and client and the significance of a legal retainer before preparation of the affirmation in reply.  A 2 hours research time would be reasonable;

(v)   receiving, attending to and considering the 3^rd affirmation of the plaintiff filed on 9 June 2007.  This is a 29 pages affirmation. 2 hours would be the reasonable time spent;

(vi) attending an 1 hour call over session before Mr. Justice Poon on 16 May 2007;

(vii)   attending a 2 hours hearing before Mr. Justice Poon on 13 July 2007.

49. Basing on the above assessment, I taxed the bill of the 1^st defendant on the work of a hypothetical solicitor of reasonable competence, I accepted the reasonable time required would be a total of 26½ hours (30 minutes + 8 hours + 5 hours + 8 hours + 2 hours + 1 hour + 2 hours).  The causes of action pleaded by the plaintiff are of such novelty that I would consider the engagement of a solicitor of reasonable standing would be a reasonable decision of the 1^st defendant.  I consider an hourly rate of HK$3,000 to be a reasonable charge.

50. Hence the costs entitlement of the 1^st defendant under Order 62 rule 28A(2) would be the sum total of HK$93,000, being the cumulative total of (i) HK$40,000 of medical expenses; (ii) HK$53,000 costs (2/3 of $3000 per hour x 26½ hours of work done) for attending to, considering the plaintiff’s statement of claim, the summons and affirmations in support, taking instructions from the 1^st defendant and in preparing the 1^st defendant’s affirmation in reply.

Review Application

51. On 13 April 2008 the plaintiff sought to review my taxation decision on the following grounds: -

(i)  Master erroneously ignored the indemnity principle in the present taxation;

(ii)    Master must tax the bill item by item as the order granted was costs on an indemnity basis and the bill must therefore be taxed item by item;

(iii)  Master wrongly applied Order 62 rule 28A(2) to allow the 1^st defendant 2/3 costs for the work done as though the work was done by a solicitor;

(iv) Master erroneously allowed the 1^st defendant costs for considering the affirmation of Mr. Josip Ma Pui Tung filed in the other High Court action HCA 909/2007;

(v)   Master erroneously assessed the time required to be 26½ hours in defending the plaintiff’s application by way of his summons of 11 May 2007; and

(vi) Master erroneously accepted the medical fees of Dr. Lau to be reasonable.

52. None of the plaintiff’s grounds for review holds water.

53. Firstly, the indemnity principle has no application to a taxation carried out under Order 62 rule 28A(2) as it was a statutory conferred right, without reference to the need of the engagement of an actual legal fees earner.

54. Secondly, I see no basis for advancing the argument that Order 62 rule 28A(2) has no application simply because the costs order granted was one of an indemnity costs order.

55. The affirmation of Josip Ma was not found in any of the exhibits referred to in above affirmations.

56. Nor do I find anything wrong with my 26½ hours assessment as explained in the previous paragraphs of my judgment.

57. The plaintiff suggested that since the 1^st defendant has only paid HK$3,000 to Dr. Lau, this Court should not allow a sum of HK$40,000 of medical fees which exceeded the out-of-pocket expense of HK$3,000 of the 1^st defendant.

58. I find no relevant material before me to suggest the charges by Dr. Lau to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable.  The plaintiff has lodged a complaint with the medical council about Dr. Lau’s charges.  Any complaint the plaintiff has about the excessiveness of Dr. Lau’s fees should be left to be attended to by the Medical council.

59. Even on the assumption that the 1^st defendant has been overcharged by Dr. Lau, it would still be a medical bill recoverable by Dr. Lau against the 1^st defendant unless the medical bill and the contractual obligation to pay has been resolved by mutual agreement between Dr. Lau and the 1^st defendant or has been set aside through due process of the law.  Unless and until the 1^st defendant’s legal obligation has been set aside or resolved, the 1^st defendant is still under a contractual obligation to honour the agreement to pay up the unpaid balance of her medical fees.

60. Mr. Peter MUI has indicated in court during this review application that the 1^st defendant is more than willing to have the amount of medical expenses to be paid directly to Dr. Lau in order to offset the 1^st defendant’s liability to Dr. Lau in respect of her medical bill.

61. Whilst I cannot accept the plaintiff’s submission that Order 62 rule 28A(2) can never be utilized in an indemnity costs taxation, I do note there is no direct evidence of financial loss of the 1^st defendant, though I have reasonably assumed that the 1^st defendant and her assistant would have lost income or would have incurred financial outlay for the time they spent in opposing the plaintiff’s interlocutory application.

62. Despite my explanation in court the 1^st defendant has elected not to file any affidavit to address the issue of her financial loss.  Falling short of direct affidavit evidence I shall not act on a factual assumption no matter how reasonable the assumption appears to be.

63. Medical bill and the agreed items apart, regarding the costs of the 1^st defendant’s work done, I do accept I ought to carry out the taxation afresh on an item per item basis under Order 62 rule 28A(3) at the hourly rate of HK$200, not on any of the grounds of review submitted by the plaintiff, but on the ground that there is no direct evidence in support of the 1^st defendant’s financial loss.

64. For easy reference, I include in this judgment a copy of the itemized bill of the 1^st defendant showing all the items I allowed and disallowed.  For easy reference I annotated the items with brief reasons for allowing or disallowing the costs on the bill itself.  A copy of the taxed bill is annexed as annexure I of this judgment.

65. For simplicity and to assist the reader to understand the costs I allowed, I set out the allowed items under the following heads: -

(i)  In respect of the consideration of the plaintiff’s inter-parte summons taken out on 11 May 2007, it is reasonable for the 1^st defendant to try to understand the plaintiff’s 25-aged statement of claim to know the case the plaintiff has pleaded against her before she proceeded to consider the inter-parte summons of 11 May 2007 and the 69-paged affirmation in support.

After learning about the facts pleaded by the plaintiff, the 1^st defendant would reasonably be expected to consider the plaintiff’s application, reduce her thoughts into writing for the purpose of presenting her case by way of an affirmation in reply to deal with factual contentions of the plaintiff.

The 1^st defendant is 84 years of age.  She often failed to attend court upon hospitalization.  It is reasonable for her to solicit the assistance of a friend who can reduce her thoughts on paper for her.  The plaintiff has to accept the 1^st defendant the way she is with all her natural attributes including her old age and her frailty.  I accept the engagement of an assistant to reduce the 1^st defendant’s thoughts into writing and to set them out in a logical manner to be a reasonable action of the 1^st defendant.  Hence I allow both the time spent by the 1^st defendant and her assistant in opposing the plaintiff’s interlocutory application of 11 May 2007.

    Items allowed in respect of the 1^st defendant’s consideration of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, inter-parte summons and his 1^st affirmation, as well as the drafting of the 1^st defendant’s affirmation in reply are as follows: -

		D1	Assistant
11/5/07	3 hours spent by 1st defendant and 3 hours spent by assistant, a total of 6 hours	3	3
11/5/07	2 hours paper work done by assistant		2
12/5/07	3 hours spent by 1st defendant and 3 hours spent by assistant, a total of 6 hours	3	3
13/5/07	3 hours spent by 1st defendant and 3 hours spent by assistant, a total of 6 hours	3	3
15/5/07	3 hours spent by 1st defendant and 3 hours spent by assistant, a total of 6 hours	3	3
17/5/07	2 hours spent by assistant in obtaining information about legal procedures from litigant in person office		2
18/5/07	2 hours spent by 1st defendant to narrate the events to her assistant		2
18/5/07	2 hours spent by assistant in receiving instruction and 3 hours spent in drafting the affirmation in reply of the 1st defendant		(2+3)
21/5/07	3 hours spent on research and 3 hours spent in preparing the document		(3+3)
23/5/07	3 hours spent on research and 3 hours spent in preparing the document		(3+3)
26/5/07	3 hours spent by 1st defendant and 3 hours spent by assistant, a total of 6 hours	3	3
27/5/07	3 hours spent by 1st defendant and 3 hours spent by assistant, a total of 6 hours	3	3
28/5/07	2 hours spent by 1st defendant to narrate the events to her assistant	2
28/5/07	2 hours spent by assistant to record the accounts given by the 1st defendant		2
29/5/07	2 hours spent by assistant to amend the 1st affirmation of the 1st defendant		2
30/5/07	1 hour spent by 1st defendant to attend Registry to fix date	1
2/6/07	3 hours conference between the 1st defendant and her assistant, incurring a total of 6 hours	3	3
3/6/07	3 hours conference between the 1st defendant and her assistant, incurring a total of 6 hours	3	3
4/6/07	3 hours conference between the 1st defendant and her assistant, incurring a total of 6 hours	3	3
5/6/07	3 hours conference between the 1st defendant and her assistant, incurring a total of 6 hours	3	3
12/6/07	3 hours spent by assistant in adding information to the draft affirmation of the 1st defendant		3
		34 hours + 1 hour in fixing date on 30/5/07	58 hours

I accept the 1^st defendant have reasonably spent 34 hours (i.e. about 4 working days of 8 hours each day and 2 more hours) in understanding the plaintiff’s statement of claim and his 1^st affirmation and to give instruction to her assistant about what the plaintiff had averred to in the above documents.  The assistant spent 58 hours in understanding the case, doing basic research, taking instruction and preparing the affirmation in reply for the 1^st defendant.

(ii)    On 16 May 2007 the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant appeared before Mr. Justice Poon for an hour from 10 am to 11 am for the call-over hearing of the summons of 11 May 2007.

I accept it is reasonable for the 1^st defendant to engage her assistant in court to assist her during the court hearing, to take notes and to assist her to appreciate what went on in court; a total of 2 hours allowed.

(iii)  According to Dr. Lau the 1^st defendant had a total of 4 hours consultation with Dr. Lau on 21 May 2007 and 22 May 2007 for the preparation of her medical report on her mental capacity both for the preparation of her will as well as to give instruction in legal proceedings.

As 4 hours have been spent over the consultation with Dr. Lau for the preparation of a medical report for dual purposes, the 4 hours consultation time is apportioned into two and 2 hours are considered referable to the present litigation.

(iv) On 9 June 2007 the plaintiff filed his 2^nd affirmation of 10 pages exhibiting 86 pages of exhibits excluding the cover pages, adding further contentions of “secretive settlement deal” and “irreparable damage to the professional honour and reputation” of the plaintiff.

 On 5 July 2007 the 1^st defendant filed her 75 pages affirmation including exhibits, making various complaints against the plaintiff. The time allowed for considering the 2^nd affirmation of the plaintiff and making adjustment to the draft of the 1^st defendant’s affirmation to include the factual issues raised by the plaintiff in his 2^nd affirmation is as follows: -

		D1	Assistant
17/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours in considering the plaintiff’s 2nd affirmation and preparing the 1st defendant’s affirmation in reply.	2	2
19/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
20/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2

23/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant, incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
24/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant, incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
27/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
28/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
30/6/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
3/7/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
4/7/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
5/7/07	2 hours conference between 1st defendant and her assistant; incurring a total of 4 hours.	2	2
5/7/07	2 hours spent by 1st defendant in deposing to her affirmation.	2
		22 hours	22 hours
		+2 hours to depose affirmation on 5/7/07

The 1^st defendant is allowed a total of 22 hours (i.e. 2 working days of 8 hours each and 6 more hours) in understanding the 2^nd affirmation of the plaintiff and to give instruction to her assistant concerning the facts raised in the plaintiff’s 2^nd affirmation.  The assistant spent the corresponding amount of time to receive instruction and adjust the affirmation in reply of the 1^st defendant.

Though the 1^st defendant made no expressed reference to the time spent in making amendment to the 1^st defendant’s affirmation with reference to the plaintiff’s 2^nd affirmation, it is quite apparent from the content of the 1^st defendant’s affirmation that the 1^st defendant had responded to the factual contentions of the plaintiff’s 2^nd affirmation.  It is reasonable inference to accept these 2^nd lot of conferences referred to above included the time spent in understanding the plaintiff’s 2^nd affirmation, considering and amending the draft affirmation of the 1^st defendant to include the factual issues raised by the plaintiff in his 2^nd affirmation.

(v)   Although the plaintiff has filed with court his 3^rd affirmation for consideration of Mr. Justice Poon in the hearing of 13 July 2007, the 1^st defendant made no reference to time spent on the consideration of this affirmation in her bill of costs.  The plaintiff also deposed to the fact that he has never served this affirmation on the 1^st defendant.  No costs have been provided for in respect of the plaintiff’s 3^rd affirmation.

(vi) On 13 July 2007 the plaintiff’s inter-parte summons was heard and dismissed by Mr. Justice Poon on the same day after a 2 hours hearing from 10 am to 12 noon.

A 2 hours pre-hearing conference time on 12 July 2007 is allowed for the 1^st defendant and her assistant, with a total time of 4 hours allowed on 12 July 2007.

66. I consider a 3 hours preparation time reasonable for the assistant to prepare the present bill of costs and for the 1^st defendant to spend 1 hour in checking and confirming the items in the bill.  A total of 4 hours allowed in respect of the preparation of this bill of costs.

67. For the present costs taxation hearing, the parties attended court on the following occasions: -

(i)  Parties attended a 15 minutes call over hearing on 13 November 2007;

(ii)    Parties attended a 2^nd 15 minutes call over hearing on 4 December 2007;

(iii)  Parties attended a 3^rd 15 minutes call over hearing On 8 January 2008;

(iv) On 24 January 2008 the first taxation hearing was held for 3 hours from 9.50 am to 1.15 pm;

(v)   A 3 hours hearing was conducted from 10 am to 1.03 pm on 19 February 2008 to hear the medical evidence of Dr. Lau and further arguments from the parties.  The 1^st defendant took out a witness summons and incurred court fees of HK$500 to summon Dr. Lau to attend court;

(vi) On 20 February 2008 this Court delivered its taxation of costs decision for 15 minutes.

68. There is no basis for amending my previous assessment of the medical expenses.

69. The total costs allowed for this bill shall be: -

(i)  60 hours (34 hours + 22 hours + 2 hrs deposing time + 2 hours pre-hearing conference) spent by the 1^st defendant in preparing her defence to the plaintiff’s interlocutory summons, which represent: -

(a)  12 hours allowed for the 1^st defendant to understand the plaintiff’s statement of claim;

(b) 1 hour allowed for the 1^st defendant to understand the interlocutory summons of the plaintiff;

(c) 10 hours allowed for the 1^st defendant to understand the 1^st affirmation of the plaintiff;

(d) 8 hours allowed for the 1^st defendant to understand the 2^nd affirmation of the plaintiff;

(e)  22 hours allowed for the 1^st defendant to give instruction to her assistant to record her account of the events;

(f)   3 hours allowed for the 1^st defendant to confirm the contents of her affirmation in reply prepared for her by her assistant;

(g) 2 hours the 1^st defendant spent in attending the Commissioner for Oath to affirm to the contents of her affirmation; and

(h) 2 hours of pre-hearing conference with assistant on 12 July 2007.

(ii)    82 hours (58 hours + 22 hours + 2 hours per-hearing conference) spent by the assistant in preparing the affirmation in reply for the 1^st defendant and to assist the 1^st defendant in her court attendance, comprising of: -

(a)  12 hours allowed for the assistant to assist the 1^st defendant to understand the plaintiff’s statement of claim;

(b) 1 hour allowed for the assistant to help the 1^st defendant to understand the interlocutory summons of the plaintiff;

(c) 10 hours allowed for the assistant to assist the 1^st defendant to understand the 1^st affirmation of the plaintiff;

(d) 8 hours allowed for the assistant to assist the 1^st defendant to understand the 2^nd affirmation of the plaintiff;

(e)  8 hours allowed for the assistant to do research into the procedures and some basic concepts for preparing the 1^st defendant’s affirmation in reply;

(f)   22 hours allowed for the assistant to receive instruction from the 1^st defendant concerning her account of the events;

(g) 19 hours allowed for the assistant to draft and prepare the 1^st defendant’s affirmation in reply; and

(h) 2 hours spent on pre-hearing conference on 12 July 2007.

(iii)  A disbursement of HK$40,000 in respect of the medical fees spent on securing the medical report of Dr. Lau concerning the mental capacity of the 1^st defendant.  A further 2 hours consultation time with Dr. Lau on 21 May 2007 and 22 May 2007; i.e. a total of $400 (2 hours x $200);

(iv) The agreed photocopying charge of HK$1,000;

(v)   1 hour spent by the 1^st defendant on 30 May 2007 in attending the High Court Registry to fix the hearing date of 13 July 2007; i.e. a sum of HK$200 (1 hour x $200);

(vi) a total of HK$1,600 [$200 x (4 hours x 2 persons)] in respect of the 3 hours court attendance time before Mr. Justice Poon for the interlocutory application hearing and 1 hour court attendance on 16 May 2007;

(vii)   a sum of HK$800 in respect of the 4 hours of preparation of this bill of costs;

(viii) a sum of HK$2,800 in respect of 14 hours (2 x 7 hours) of court attendance in respect of the costs taxation hearings set out in paragraphs 67 of this judgment;

(ix) a disbursement of HK$500 in respect of the witness summons fees in summoning Dr. Lau to attend court for the taxation hearing;

(x)   taxation fees of a sum to be confirmed by the High Court Registry which the 1^st defendant is required to pay to court for the taxation of her bill of costs.

70. The sum total of this Costs Order shall be

(i)	costs for defending the summons
	[$200 x (60 hours + 82 hours)]	$28,400
(ii)	time spent in seeking medical report
	[$200 x 2 hours]	$400
(iii)	1 hour spent on 30/5/07 to fix date
	[$200 x 1 hour]	$200
(iv)	Costs for court attendance of summons
	[$200 x (4 hours x 2 persons)]	$1,600
(v)	Costs for preparing this bill of costs
	[$200 x 4 hours]	$800
(vi)	Costs of court attendance for costs taxation
	[$200 x (7 hours x 2 person)]	$2,800
		$34,200
(vii)	Disbursements: -
	medical bill	$40,000
	photocopying charges	$1,000
	witness summons	$500
		$41,500
(vi)	taxation costs (to be confirmed by High Court Registry)
	Total:	$75,700
		+ taxation costs

71. The balance of the medical bill, i.e. a sum of HK$37,000 ($40,000 – $3,000) of this taxed costs is be paid by the plaintiff into court to be collected by Dr. Lau.

72. The plaintiff’s application for review is without merits save and except the aspect about the financial outlay of the 1^st defendant (a point not put forward by the plaintiff) which 1^st defendant was not prepared to dwell further by filing her affirmation to address the issue.

73. As the plaintiff succeeded partly on this review application but failed in respect of the rest, it is fairness for me to make no further order for costs for this review application.  That is to say the parties are to bear their own costs of this review application.  This order for costs is a costs order nisi for which parties have a right to apply for variation within 14 days from the day of the handing down of the judgment.  The order would become absolute falling short of application made for variation within these 14 days.

Annexure I

(1)    Defendant Tam Mei Kam, litigant in person, charges as follows: -

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	10/5/07 received HCA 811 summons, engaged a private assistant and discussed the facts — Tam Mei-kam narrated / assistant took notes: a total of 4 hours	$800.00	Not allowed, this item has no connection with the 11/5/07 summons, because plaintiff said he served the summons on 1st Defendant only on 11/5/07	-
	10/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$45.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	11/5/07 conference between Mui Kai Ming (originally 2nd defendant), Tam Mei Kam and the assistant: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	11/5/07 secretary / assistant did paper work: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Allowed 2 hours	$400.00
	11/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$65.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	12/5/07 conference between Mui Kai Ting, Tam Mei Kam and the assistant, with notes taken for the conference: a total of 12 hours	$2,000.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	12/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$52.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	13/5/07 conference between Mui Kai Ming, Tam Mei Kam and the assistant, with notes taken for the conference: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	13/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$56.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	14/5/07 Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant applied for legal aid and discussed the facts: a total of 4 hours	$800.00	Madam Tam Mei Kam did not apply for legal aid, this item has no connection with the 11/5/07 summons application, not allowed	-
	14/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$65.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	14/5/07 photocopying charge: 10 pages	$15.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	15/5/07 conference between Mui Kai Ting, Tam Mei Kam and the assistant, with notes taken for the conference: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	15/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	15/5/07 photocopying charge: 16 pages	$24.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	16/5/07 attended court for hearing, Tam Mei Kam charges $50/15 minutes for the hearing, a total of 30 minutes	$100.00	1 hour according to court record, allowed costs for 1 hour	$200.00
	16/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$70.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	16/5/07 Mui Kai Ming assisted in the court attendance, $50/15 minutes, a total of 30 minutes	$100.00	Not allowed, Mui Kai Ming has no connection with the 11/5/07 application	-
	16/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$70.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	16/5/07 private assistant assisted in the court attendance, attended conference and discussed the facts: a total of 4 hours	$800.00	Allowed costs for court attendance of 1 hour	$200.00
	16/5/07 Mui Kai Ming attended conference and discussed the facts: 3 hours	$600.00	Not allowed, Mui Kai Ming has no connection with the 11/5/07 application	-
	16/5/07 photocopying charge: 16 pages	$24.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	17/5/07 private assistant and Mui Kai Ming enquired about legal procedures, asked for information and held conference at the litigant in person office, High Court, Queensway: a total of 4 hours	$800.00	Mui Kai Ming has no connection with the 11/5/07 application, only allowed 2 hours required by Tam Mei Kam’s assistant for enquiring about legal procedures and asking for relevant information	$400.00
	17/5/07 traffic expense:	$70.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	17/5/07 photocopying charge: 6 pages	$9.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	18/5/07 private assistant drafted the defence: a total of 5 hours	$1,000.00	Allowed 2 hours for listening to Tam Mei Kam’s oral account of the content of the defence and 3 hours for drafting the affirmation in reply	$1,000.00
	18/5/07 Mui Kai Ming dictated the content of the defence: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Not allowed, Mui Kai Ming has no connection with the 11/5/07 application	-
Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	18/5/07 Tam Mei Kam dictated the content of the defence: a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Allowed	$400.00
	18/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	18/5/07 photocopying charge: 32 pages	$48.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	19/5/07 Tam Kei Kam consulted the doctor and discussed the mental report: a total of 2 hours	$400.00	According to the doctor’s record, Dr. Lau interviewed Madam Tam on 21/5 and 22/5 for a total of 4 hours. The date of this item is amended to 21/5/07 and 22/5/07 accordingly. The doctor had to take care of 2 areas, i.e. whether Madam Tam had the mental capacity to make a will and to deal with legal proceedings, therefore only 2 hours is allowed for this item.	$400.00
	19/5/07 Mui Kai Ming and the secretary / assistant accompanied her to consult the doctor and discussed the mental report, a total of 4 hours	$800.00	Not allowed the doctor is a professional, no need to discuss the content of the report with the 1st defendant	-
	19/5/07 traffic expense	$68.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	21/5/07 private assistant typed out documents in Chinese, consulted law books and acquainted herself with legal procedures: a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00	Allowed 3 hours for obtaining information about legal procedures and 3 hours for writing the affirmation in reply	$1,200.00
	21/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$40.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	22/5/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant and discussed the mental report for which medical consultation was sought: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Not allowed, the doctor is a professional, no need to discuss the content of the report with the 1st defendant	-
	22/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$52.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	23/5/07 Tam Mei Kam discussed the mental report for which medical consultation was sought: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Not allowed, the doctor is a professional, no need to discuss the content of the report with the 1st defendant	-
	23/5/07 private assistant typed out documents in Chinese, consulted law books and acquainted herself with legal procedures: a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00	Allowed 3 hours for obtaining information about legal procedures and 3 hours for writing the affirmation in reply	$1,200.00

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	23/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$56.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	24/5/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant and discussed the mental report for which medical consultation was sought: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Not allowed, the doctor is a professional, no need to discuss the content of the report with the 1st defendant	-
	24/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$52.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	25/5/07 Mui Kai Ming applied for legal aid / interviewed by legal aid officer, a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Madam Tam did not apply for legal aid, this item has no connection with the 11/5/07 summons application	-
	25/5/07 private assistant filled in the forms and went together to see the legal aid officer, a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Madam Tam did not apply for legal aid, this item has no connection with the 11/5/07 summons application	-
	25/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$70.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	26/5/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	26/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$68.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	26/5/07 photocopying charge: 30 pages	$45.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	27/5/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	27/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$70.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	28/5/07 conference was held, Tam Mei Kam narrated the events: a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Allowed	$400.00

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	28/5/07 conference was held with Mui Kai Ming, discussed extension of time: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Not allowed, Mui Kai Ming has no correction with the 11/5/07 application	-
	28/5/07 note taking by the private assistant: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Allowed 2 hours	$400.00
	28/5/07 photocopying charge: 21 pages	$31.50	This is one of the agreed items	-
	28/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	29/5/07 private assistant assisted in amending the defence, a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Allowed	$400.00
	29/5/07 Mui Kai Ming amended the defence, a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Not allowed, Mui Kai Ming has no connection with the 11/5/07 application	-
	29/5/07 photocopying charge: 106 pages	$153.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	29/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$47.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	30/5/07 Tam Mei Kam went to fix date: a total of 1 hour	$200.00	Allowed	$200.00
	30/5/07 Mui Kai Ming assisted her when she went to fix date: a total of 1 hour	$200.00	Not allowed, Mui Kai Ming has no connection with the 11/5/07 application	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	30/5/07 private assistant assisted her during the date-fixing: a total of 1 hour	$200.00	Not allowed, date-fixing is a simple procedure, no need for assistance from the assistant	-
	30/5/07 traffic expense: a total of	$72.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	2/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00
	2/6/07 photocopying charge: 20 pages	$30.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	2/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	3/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 3 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 6 hours	$1,200.00

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	19/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	19/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	20/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	20/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$66.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	23/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	23/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	24/6/07 conference between Tam Mei kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	24/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$66.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	27/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	27/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$70.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	28/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	28/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$68.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	30/6/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	30/6/07 traffic expense: a total of	$66.00	This is one of the agreed itmes	-
	3/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	3/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$56.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	4/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	4/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$64.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	5/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Mui Kai Ming was not a party to the 11/5/07 summons and Madam Tam Mei Kam already engaged an assistant to deal with secretarial work for her, reasonable time spent should be 2 hours each by Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	5/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	5/7/07 Tam Mei Kam went through the affirmation formality: a total of 2 hours	$400.00	Allowed	$400.00
	5/7/07 private assistant assisted in the affirmation formality and worked: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Not allowed, no need for assistance from the assistant in the affirmation	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	5/7/07 private assistant assisted in filing documents	$100.00	Not allowed, Madam Tam Mei Kam already deposed to her affirmation on 5/7/07, what this item was used for is not clear
	5/7/07 photocopying charge: a total of 174 pages	$870.00	This if one of the agreed items	-
	5/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	6/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Not allowed, Madam Tam Mei Kam already deposed to her affirmation on 5/7/07, what this item was used for is not clear	-
	6/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$66.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	8/7/07 documents posted by registered mail	$48.00	Not allowed, no such information	-
	9/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Not allowed, Madam Tam Mei Kam already deposed to her affirmation on 5/7/07, what this item was used for is not clear	-
	9/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$60.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	10/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Not allowed, Madam Tam Mei Kam already deposed to her affirmation on 5/7/07, what this item was used for is not clear	-
	10/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$56.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	12/7/07 conference between Tam Mei Kam, Mui Kai Ming and the private assistant, and report was made about the situation: a total of 12 hours	$2,400.00	Pre-hearing preparation, 2 hours each is allowed for Madam Tam Mei Kam and her assistant, a total of 4 hours	$800.00
	12/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$68.00	This is one of the agreed items	-
	13/7/07 Tam Mei Kam appeared at the hearing: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Court appearance record is 2 hours: allowed 2 hours	$400.00
	13/7/07 private assistant assisted in documentation and note-taking: a total of 3 hours	$600.00	Court appearance record is 2 hours: allowed 2 hours	$400.00
	13/7/07 traffic expense: a total of	$72.00	This is one of the agreed items	-

Item No.	Date and particulars	Costs HK ($)	Court assessment	Taxed costs HK ($)
	/ /07 psychiatrist report	$85,000.00		$40,000.00
	Total	$176,227.50