WIDELAND INTERNATIONAL LTD v. Crafa Hotel Management Ltd AND ANOTHER

HCA 1331/2024

[2026] HKCFI 291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1331 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

Assessment of Damages

________________________

Introduction

1.  This is the assessment of further damages suffered by the plaintiff (“P”)  as a result of breach of a 10-year fixed term lease agreement dated 18 December 2020 (“Lease”)  by the 1^st defendant (“D1”)  and of a deed of surety also dated 18 December 2020 (“Deed”)  by the 2^nd defendant (“D2”). 

2.  P was represented by Mr Lau of counsel at the assessment hearing. The defendants were absent at the hearing.  I was satisfied by the affirmation of service filed by P herein on 8 December 2025 that P had served the notice of hearing for this assessment hearing on the defendants, such that the defendants should have knowledge of this assessment hearing.  It was the defendants’ own choice not to attend this assessment hearing.  I proceeded with the hearing in the defendants’ absence.  

Background

3.  P was and is the legal and registered owner of the premises (“Premises”), subject of the Lease.  P was the landlord and D1 was the tenant under the Lease.  The Lease was for D1 to lease the Premises from P to operate a hotel at the Premises for a fixed term of ten years from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2030. 

4.  D2 was a director of D1.  By the Deed, D2 guaranteed in favour of P the due, punctual and diligent performance by D1 of all its obligations, liabilities, stipulations, acts or duties under the Lease including, but not limited to, payment of rent and other outgoings and/or payments which were required to be paid by D1 under the Lease.  

5.  Under the Lease, D1 had to pay rent and management charges for the Premises.  The monthly rental was agreed at $300,000.00 for the first year; $380,000.00 for the second year; $800,000.00 for the third year; $900,000.00 for the fourth year; $1,000,000.00 for the fifth year; $1,100,000.00 for the sixth year; and $1,200,000.00 for the seventh to the tenth year.  The management charges were agreed at $150,885.00 per month. 

6.  D1 failed to pay full rental for the Premises for January 2024 and any rent for the Premises from 1 April 2024 onwards.  D1 also failed to pay management charges for the Premises from 1 May 2024 onwards. 

7.  On 8 July 2024, P issued the writ herein to claim against the defendants under the Lease and the Deed.  The defendants did not give any notice of intention to defend nor file any defence.  In fact, the defendants did not take any steps in these proceedings including this assessment exercise.

8.  On 19 November 2024, P obtained final and interlocutory judgment (“Judgment”)  against the defendants for its claims herein. 

9.  In the Judgment, the court ordered D1 to deliver vacant possession of the Premises to P and further ordered D1 and D2 to pay jointly and severally to P:

(1)  outstanding rental and management charges from 1 January 2024 to 8 July 2024 in the sum of $3,354,071.13 (“Sum”);

(2)  interest on the Sum calculated up to 8 July 2024 in the sum of $46,017.48 and thereafter at the rate of 2% per annum above the best lending rates quoted by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited from 9 July 2024 to the date of the Judgment and thereafter at judgment rates until the date of vacant possession of the Premises;

(3)  mesne profits and further management charges in the total sum of $1,050,885.00 per month from 9 July 2024 until the date of vacant possession of the Premises;

(4)  further loss and damages to be assessed; and

(5)  damages representing costs of this action to be taxed on an indemnity basis. 

10.  P obtained vacant possession of the Premises on 31 December 2024. Mesne profits and further management charges for the period from 9 July 2024 to 31 December 2024 had been covered by §3 of the Judgment (as set out in §9(3)  above)  and did not need to be assessed by me at this hearing.  The hearing before me was for assessing the further loss and damages ordered by the Judgment.

P’s claims

11.  In this assessment exercise, P claimed the following further loss and damages in respect of the Premises (§34 of the opening submissions of P):

(1)  post-writ rent from August 2024 to December 2030 in the sum of $87,300,000.00 (“Rental Claim”);

(2)  post-writ management charges from August 2024 to December 2030 in the sum of $11,618,145.00 (“Management Charges Claim”);

(3)  annual inspection fees for fire safety and ventilation from 2024 to 2030 in the sum of $233,100.00 (“Inspection Fees Claim”);

(4)  government rates from July to December 2024 in the sum of $121,680.00 (“Rates Claim”); and

(5)  post-writ interests in the sum of $1,149,076.08 (“Pre-Assessment Interest Claim”).

12.  D1 had paid $2,000,000.00 (“Deposit”)  to P as deposit under the Lease.  P agreed to give credit to the Deposit for its claim for further loss and damages.  After giving credit to the Deposit, P’s claim was for $98,422,001.08. 

13.  In the statement of claim filed herein, the plaintiff also claimed “emergency repair fee for the damaged fire control system caused by hotel toilet water leaked from broken pipes” in the sum of $345,800.00 and “repair fee of smoke detector (failed sensor of head)  for hotel room 2100” in the sum of $3,100.00 (§10 of the statement of claim).  P did not pursue these items in this assessment exercise and adduced no evidence in respect of such repair fees.   As such, I shall not concern myself with these items in this assessment.  

14.  At the assessment hearing, Mr Lau submitted an annex revising P’s claims to become:

(1)  Rental Claim: $42,607,741.94 (from 9 July 2024 to December 2030 and on the basis that P should have reasonably obtained a lease with a market rental of $630,000.00 per month on 1 January 2025);

(2)  Management Charges Claim: $11,730,091.94 (from 9 July 2024 to December 2030);

(3)  Inspection Fees Claim: $233,100.00;

(4)  Rates Claim: $121,680.00; and

(5)  Pre-Assessment Interest Claim: $817,357.86. 

15.  After giving credit to the Deposit, P’s revised claims were for $53,509,971.74. 

16.  I pointed out to Mr Lau that claims for rental/mesne profits and management charges for the Premises up to delivery of vacant possession, i.e. 31 December 2024, had been covered by the Judgment and thus, did not concern us at this assessment exercise.  Mr Lau agreed.

17.  I further pointed out to Mr Lau that the expert evidence adduced by P on market rent of the Premises was exclusive of management fees and government rates (see §22 below).  As such, any management charges and government rates from 1 January 2025 onwards would be borne by the new tenant (if there were one)  on top of rental.  Thus, P would not suffer further loss in respect of the management charges and government rates after 31 December 2024 save and except for the period when the Premises were vacant pending P’s securing a new tenant.  Mr Lau agreed. 

18.  Mr Lau submitted that allowing a period of six months for P to secure a new tenant after obtaining vacant possession of the Premises would be reasonable and P would confine its Management Charges Claim to the period from 1 January to 30 June 2025. 

P’s evidence

19.  On 6 August 2025, the court granted leave for P to adduce expert evidence of Mr Cyrus Fong (“CF”)  on valuation in respect of the market rental for the Premises as of 1 January 2025.  P filed the valuation report of CF dated 3 June 2025 (“Report”). 

20.  By an order dated 4 November 2025, the court directed that the Report be adduced as evidence at the assessment hearing without calling CF to testify at the hearing. 

21.  CF adopted the Income Approach for the valuation of market rent for the Premises as there were no direct rental comparables available in the market that were sufficiently similar in terms of property type, scale, and operating model. 

22.  CF opined that the market monthly rental (exclusive of government rent, rates, management fees and all other outgoings)  for the Premises subject to a lease term of 10 years commencing on 1 January 2025 was $631,000.00 (“Market Rent”)  (§3.16 of the Report). 

23.  P filed the witness statement and supplemental witness statement of Mr Lai Sai Lung (“LSL”)  dated 7 July 2025 (“Witness Statement”)  and 29 December 2025 (“Supplemental Witness Statement”)  respectively and called LSL to testify at the assessment hearing. 

24.  P also produced, inter alia, copies of the Lease and the Deed as evidence at the assessment hearing.  Clause 2.4 of the Lease provided, inter alia, that D1 had to pay government rent and rates to be assessed, imposed or levied on the Premises or upon P by the Government of HKSAR. 

25.  LSL testified at the assessment hearing.  He was a manager of P. He adopted the Witness Statement and the Supplemental Witness Statement as his evidence and clarified some issues raised by the court at the assessment hearing. 

26.  He gave evidence on actions taken by P to mitigate its loss after knowing D1’s breach of the Lease. 

27.  He stated that since January 2024, as D1 began to show signs of default in payment, P had approached agents to seek potential replacement tenants in the event that D1 continued to default.  LSL further stated that because of the scale of the Premises and the substantial financial implications concerning the lease, all previous leases for the Premises were negotiated via agents who approached potential tenants.  He stated that it was unlikely that general advertisement at property agencies would yield fruitful result.  P had also explored potential tenants via its own business connections. 

28.  In early January 2024, P had discussed with Guangdong Hotel Ltd for leasing the Premises or co-operation to run a hotel business at the Premises.  However, the discussion did not proceed to any fruitful conclusion due to poor economic outlook at that time. 

29.  LSL further stated that P had found four potential tenants in 2025 through estate agents and/or P’s business connections.  However, due to poor economic outlook and/or low offering rents, discussions with these prospective tenants did not proceed to any fruitful conclusion (§§36-39 of the Witness Statement). 

30.  In the Supplemental Witness Statement, LSL stated that on 15 August 2025 P entered into an agreement with Grade Best Limited (“GBL”)  to operate a hotel business at the Premises with profits sharing between the parties.  The hotel operation commenced in September 2025 and started to generate some profits to P in October and November 2025 but P’s share of such profits (i.e. $427,536.37 for October and $572,167.83 for November)  was still less than the Market Rent.  In any event, LSL stated that P was contended to accept damages calculated based on the hypothetical monthly rent of $630,000.00 for the Premises (§7 of the Supplemental Witness Statement). 

31.  At the assessment hearing, LSL said that P started the business venture discussion with GBL in July 2025 as the Premises had been left vacant for a long time. 

32.  The defendants did not adduce any evidence to rebut P’s case. They also did not attend the assessment hearing to challenge the evidence of CF and/or that of LSL.  I accept their evidence in full. 

Legal principle

33.  The Lease was a contract.  The general principle is that subject to “mitigation” by the claimant, damages for breach of contract are compensation to the claimant for the damages or loss which the claimant has suffered through that breach and are not “too remote”. (See Chitty on Contracts Vol 1, 35^th edition at §§30-001 to 30-002)  As Parke B stated in Robinson v Harman (1847-1848)  1 Exchequer Reports 850 at 855 that:

“The rule of the common law is, that where a party sustains a loss by reason of a breach of contract, he is, so far as money can do it, to be placed in the same situation, with respect to damages, as if the contract had been performed.”

34.  The classic statement of the rules regarding remoteness of damages in contract is to be found in Hadley v Baxendale (1853-1854)  9 Exchequer Reports 341 at 354 when Alderson B stated that:

“Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either as arising naturally, i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.”

35.  Mr Lau referred to Palliser Investments Limited v Vickwood Limited & Anor [2019] HKCFI 1484 when the court summarised the principles concerning a landlord’s claim for damages against a defaulting tenant (which I agree)  as follows:

“12. The damages recoverable by a landlord for a tenant’s wrongful repudiation of a tenancy agreement include damages reflecting the rental, service charges, rates and reinstatement costs if the agreement is permitted to run its full course, subject to a duty to mitigate its loss: see Windsor House Ltd v Shining Source Holding Group (Hong Kong)  Ltd [2019] HKCFI 279 at paragraph 13.

13. A landlord is expected to act reasonably and to take such steps as are necessary to re-let the vacant premises at market rent. However, the burden falls upon the defendant to establish that mitigation has not taken place: see The Hong Kong Housing Authority v Super Happy Investment [2018] HKCFI 2674 at paragraph 27.

14. The duty to mitigate is not an onerous one as the landlord is not required to do anything other than acting in the ordinary course of business: see Wing Siu Co v Goldquestion International (HCA 4145 and 3183/2001, unreported, 18 August 2006)  at paragraph 8.

15. In Sano Screen Manufacturers & Anor v J&R Bossini Trading Ltd [2000] 3 HKC 216, the court was satisfied that the landlord had discharged its duties to mitigate damages by seeking assistance from a number of estate agents (see 220H to 221A). Further at 220E-G, the ordinary contractual principles of repudiation and acceptance apply to a tenancy agreement.

16.  It is trite law that a plaintiff had no obligation to mitigate his damages before there has been a breach or an anticipatory repudiation that it had accepted: see Chitty on Contracts, 33^rd Ed. Vol. 1, at 26-095.”

36.  Mr Lau further referred to Foxhill Investments Limited v Sino Golden International Group Holdings Limited [2021] HKCFI 3662 when the court stated that:

“14. It is well established that where a landlord accepts a tenant’s repudiation of the tenancy agreement, it is entitled to claim as damages against the tenant for rent of the unexpired term of the tenancy agreement, rates, service charges and reinstatement costs. This is subject to a duty on the landlord to mitigate its loss by acting reasonably and take such steps as are necessary to re-let the vacant premises at market rent. The duty to mitigate is not onerous, the landlord is not required to do anything other than in the ordinary course of business. The burden is on the tenant to show that damages has not been mitigated: see Silvercord Limited v High Performance Sports Limited HCA 1774/2018 (unrep, 30 July 2020)  at §9 per Master Anthony H K Chan, citing Chan Annie v Lau Wai Kwong [1984] HKC 231 at 235G-H per Mantell J and Wing Siu Co Ltd v Goldquest International Ltd HCA 3183 & 4145/2001 (unrep, 18 August 2006)  at §§7-8 per Master de Souza.

15.  If a defendant wishes to set up a positive case that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate his loss, he must plead the allegation with particulars specifically in its defence: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2021 §18/8/23.  Here, as the Defendant has not filed any defence and has not adduced any evidence, it is not open for the Defendant to say that the Plaintiff has not mitigated its loss.” 

37.  In the case before me, the defendants also had not filed any defence nor adduced any evidence to allege that P had failed to mitigate its loss.  The unchallenged evidence adduced by P showed that the P had taken reasonable steps to mitigate its loss by actively seeking (but without success)  replacement tenants for the Premises in the market via estate agents and P’s own business connections after P had accepted D1’s repudiation of the Lease. 

38.  If D1 had not breached the Lease, it would have paid rent for the Premises from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2030 at the contractual rates set out in §5 above.  The total sum would be $82,800,000.00 (i.e. $12,000,000.00 for 2025 + $13,200,000.00 for 2026 + $57,600,000.00 for 2027 to 2030). 

39.  The loss which P would have suffered in respect of rental for the Premises would be the loss of contractual rental in the sum of $82,800,000.00 less the amount of rental for the Premises which P would have received from a new tenant for the period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2030. 

40.  As P is to be compensated for loss of an income stream, a capital sum will be awarded with an appropriate discount for accelerated receipt of income (Zodiac Maritime Agencies Ltd v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd (The Kildare) [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 360 at §73; Mitsui Osk Lines Ltd v Salgaocar Mining Industries Private Ltd [2015] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 518 at §§56-58). 

41.  It is reasonable to expect that it would take some times before P might secure a new tenant for the Premises after obtaining vacant possession of the Premises.  P would suffer loss of management charges and have to pay the government rates from 1 January 2025 until a new tenant would have been secured. 

Discussion

42.  The defendants had not adduced any evidence to rebut CF’s valuation of market rent for the Premises.  I accept CF’s evidence that as of 1 January 2025, the market rent for the Premises was $631,000.00 per month. 

43.  The Premises occupied most, if not all, floors of a 29-storey commercial building used for the purpose of hotel business and the remaining term of the Lease still had six years to go as at 1 January 2025.  LSL’s evidence was that in P’s experience, it was customary for parties to a lease for a hotel to fix the rental at an initially reduced rate but on an increasing scale to enable the tenant to slowly build clientele.  The increasing rentals were adopted on the assumption that the hotel would become profitable as it operated.  (See §8 of the Witness Statement)  This was supported by the rental structure of the Lease whereby the monthly rental increased from $300,000.00 in the first year to $1,200,000.00 from the seventh year onwards.  The same appeared in the preceding lease for the Premises entered in 2012 by P with the previous tenant (§7 of the Witness Statement). 

44.  Mr Lau submitted that the Market Rent was the average monthly rental for a 10-year lease for the Premises commencing on 1 January 2025. I accept Mr Lau’s interpretation of CF’s valuation.  

45.  LSL’s evidence was that P had tried for about six months to secure a new tenant for the Premises without success before P decided to enter into an agreement with GBL to operate a hotel business at the Premises (“Business Agreement”).  They started discussion for the business venture in July 2025 and signed the Business Agreement on 15 August 2025.  I agree that it is reasonable to allow six months for P to secure a new tenant for the Premises bearing in mind that the size of the Premises (i.e. 33,530 sq ft)  and the length of the period concerned (i.e. 6 years)  are both substantial.  

46.  P’s profits or loss under the Business Agreement were results of its business venture to operate a hotel business.  I am of the view that such business venture neither “arising naturally from such breach of contract itself” nor “may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it”.  Any loss of P resulting from such business venture will be too remote to be recovered from the defendants.  I note that P did not seek to rely on its loss or profits under the Business Agreement for the quantum assessment in this exercise. 

Findings and assessment

Rental Claim

47.  I find that the defendants are liable to pay P’s loss of rental from 1 January to 30 June 2025 at the contractual rate of $1,000,000.00 per month when the Premises were vacant pending P’s finding of new tenant. 

48.  I assess this amount at $6,000,000.00 (i.e. $1,000,000.00 x 6 months).

49.  I further find that the defendants shall be liable to compensate P for further loss of rental from 1 July 2025 to 31 December 2030.  I accept the Market Rent as the average monthly market rental for the Premises for such period.  The further damages suffered by P are the differences between the contractual rents under the Lease and the Market Rent for that period. 

50.  I assess this amount at $35,154,000.00 (i.e. [$1,000,000.00 - $631,000.00] x 6 months + [$1,100,000.00 - $631,000.00] x 12 months + [$1,200,000.00 - $631,000.00] x 48 months). 

51.  As P will be receiving accelerated compensation for loss which it would suffer within the next five years after this assessment, I am of the view that a discount of 5% of the capital compensation is appropriate.  I assess the amount payable by the defendants to P to compensate its loss of rental from 1 July 2025 to 31 December 2030 to be $33,396,300.00 (i.e. $35,154,000.00 x 95%).

52.  I assess the total amount payable by the defendants to P under the Rental Claim at $39,396,300.00 (i.e. $6,000,000.00 + $33,396,300.00).

Management Charges Claim

53.  I find that the defendants are liable to pay P’s Management Charges Claim for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2025 at the contractual rate of $150,885.00 per month when the Premises were vacant pending P’s finding of new tenant. 

54.  I assess this amount at $905,310.00 (i.e. $150,885.00 x 6 months).

Inspection Fees Claim

55.  D1 was holder of a hotel licence (§14 of the Witness Statement). Annual inspection fees for fire safety and ventilation would likely be expenses which D1 would have to incur to keep its hotel licence.  These are not expenses which P, as the landlord for the Premises, will be liable to pay in the event of D1 defaulting in carrying out the annual inspections. 

56.  If the new tenant shall continue to operate a hotel at the Premises, it will have to carry out the annual inspections to comply with the licensing requirements.  The fees incurred will be the new tenant’s operation costs and do not concern P as the landlord of the Premises. 

57.  In the statement of claim, P referred to clause 3.2(b)(v)  of the Lease which provided for D1 to be responsible for all costs and expenses of and to take all steps to ensure that all services, facilities and maintenance in relation to the Premises, and the Fixtures and Fittings (as defined in the Lease), including without limitation maintenance of fire safety installations and equipment, including periodic checks and services, emergency services and annual inspection, be arranged and carried out in compliance with the relevant ordinances, regulations, bye-laws, rules and requirements of the Government or other competent authorities. 

58.  However, neither LSL nor Mr Lau had referred me to any provisions in any ordinances, regulations, bye-laws, rules or requirements of the Government or other competent authorities requiring D1 or P to carry out annual inspection for fire safety and ventilation for the Premises if the Premises were not being operated as a hotel. 

59.  After taking instructions, Mr Lau confirmed that P no longer pursued the Inspection Fees Claim. 

Rates Claim

60.  Vacant possession of the Premises was obtained by P on 31 December 2024. 

61.  I note that §3 of the Judgment only covered mesne profits and further management charges from 9 July 2024 to 31 December 2024.  It had not dealt with government rates payable for the Premises for the third and fourth quarters of 2024.  D1 should be liable to pay government rates for the Premises prior to P obtaining vacant possession of the Premises. 

62.  I find that the defendants shall also be liable for government rates for the Premises for the period from 1 January to 30 June 2025 (i.e. two quarters)  when the Premises was left vacant pending P’s finding of new tenant.  

63.  Demand notes for government rates for the Premises for the third and fourth quarters of 2024 produced by P showed that $60,840.00 was payable as government rates for the Premises quarterly. 

64.  I find the defendants liable to reimburse P for government rates paid by P for the period from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025 (i.e. 4 quarters). The amount shall be $243,360.00 (i.e. $60,840.00 x 4 quarters).

Pre-Assessment Interest Claim

65.  The Pre-Assessment Interest Claim was formulated on the assumption that D1 had to continue to pay contractual rent and management charges in advance at the beginning of each month from the date of writ to the date of this assessment hearing but had failed to do so.  P claimed interest from the purported due dates of these periodical payments up to the assessment hearing date on such overdue contractual periodical payments at the contractual interest rate of 2% above the best lending rates quoted by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited at the material times.  

66.  By issuing the writ herein on 8 July 2024, P had terminated the Lease on that date.  After termination of the Lease, P did not have legal or contractual entitlement to require D1 to pay rent and/or management charges monthly in advance which were D1’s contractual obligations when the Lease was still subsisting.  After termination of the Lease due to breach by D1, P’s remedy was to claim damages for breach of contract. 

67.  As no further contractual rent and/or management charges were due and payable by D1 to P after issuance of the writ herein, there was no legal basis for P to claim the Pre-Assessment Interest Claim based on monthly contractual rent and/or management charges continued to be paid monthly in advance after the issuance of the writ. 

68.  After taking instructions, Mr Lau confirmed that P no longer pursued the Pre-Assessment Interest Claim. 

Conclusion

69.  I find that the defendants are liable to pay the following further loss and damages to P which I assess as follows:

(1)  Rental Claim : $39,396,300.00;

(2)  Management Charges Claim: $905,310.00; and

(3)  Rates Claim: $243,360.00.

70.  I assess that the total amount of further loss and damages suffered by P is $40,544,970.00 (i.e. $39,396,300.00 + $905,310.00 + $243,360.00).  After giving credit to the Deposit in the sum of $2,000,000.00, the defendants shall pay $38,544,970.00 as further damages to P pursuant to §(4)  of the Judgment.  I so ordered. 

Interest and Costs

71.  P is entitled to statutory interest at judgment rates on the aforesaid assessed further loss and damages pursuant to section 49 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4. 

72.  P seeks costs for this assessment exercise on an indemnity basis against the defendants to be assessed by summary assessment. 

73.  Clause 8.1 of the Lease provided to the effect that all costs and expenses, including any legal costs and fees, incurred by P in exercising its rights and/or remedies in the event of default of the Lease by D1 should be paid by D1 on a full indemnity basis. 

74.  Clause 3(a)  of the Deed provided for D2 to indemnify P, inter alia, for any costs, loss, expenses resulting from the failure by D1 to perform duly and punctually any of D1’s obligations under the Lease (including, but without limitation, all legal and other costs, charges and expenses incurred by P in connection with preserving or enforcing P’s rights under the Deed). 

75.  P had claimed, as a damages item, costs for this action on an indemnity basis in the statement of claim which were granted by the court in the Judgment. 

76.  I agree that P may claim costs for this assessment exercise on an indemnity basis.  I order the defendants to pay P’s costs for this assessment exercise (including this assessment hearing)  on an indemnity basis. 

77.  Mr Lau submitted a statement of costs at the hearing claiming $585,920.00 as P’s costs.  I have considered the statement of costs and find that it covered not only P’s costs for this assessment of damages exercise, but P’s costs for the whole action.  The Judgment had adjudged the defendants to pay, inter alia, damages representing costs of this action to P to be taxed on indemnity basis (emphasis added).  It is not open for me to assess P’s costs for this action up to the Judgment by summary assessment.  P has to proceed to taxation for determination of the amount of such costs. 

78.  As the statement of costs provided to me covered P’s costs for the whole action up to the date of the assessment hearing, I am in no position to ascertain P’s costs claim for this assessment exercise for the purpose of summary assessment.  Mr Lau had informed me at the assessment hearing that P had not yet commenced taxation of its costs under the Judgment.  As such, I am of the view that it is appropriate and more convenient to have P’s costs for this assessment exercise (including this assessment hearing)  to be taxed together with P’s costs incurred prior to the Judgment to avoid duplication and overlapping items. 

79.  I order that the defendants shall pay P’s costs for this assessment of damages (including all costs previously reserved, if any, in respect of this assessment exercise)  on an indemnity basis, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.