THE HONG KONG MEDICAL ASSOCIATION v. YIP SHU CHEE AND OTHERS

HCCW 237/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO 237 OF 2005

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

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

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

DECISION ON ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

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

1. On 5 February 2013, I handed down my Decision in which I dismissed the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents’ Amended Strike Out Summons dated 22 January 2013 (“Decision”). I also granted a costs order nisi (which is now absolute) in favour of the joint and several liquidators of Faith Dee Limited against the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents (including all costs reserved if any) to be summarily assessed (“Cost Order”). This is the decision on summary assessment of costs under the Cost Order. For convenience, I shall adopt the abbreviations in the Decision.

2. Since costs under the Cost Order are assessed on party and party basis, only costs that are necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the taxing party’s rights will be allowed (see Order 62 rule 28(2) of the Rules of the High Court).

Hourly rates

3. I find that the hourly rate of the litigation clerk excessive, and it should be $900.00.  Given the nature of the work, I find the hourly rates for FMC, YPL and CML respectively at $1,100.00, $3,500.00 and $4,000.00 appropriate.

Item B

4. There is no justification for the Respondents to suggest that photocopy charges and the cost of litigation clerk in filing/serving documents are not recoverable under summary assessment of costs.  They are plainly costs covered under the Cost Order.  I allow $2,000.00 under this item.

Item C

5. Under this item, YPL spent 4.5 hours communicating with the client, counsel and solicitors for the Respondents. In my view, it is obvious that instructions had to be taken from the Liquidators to resist the Strike Out Summons and the Amended Strike Out Summons and time would be required to liaise with counsel.  I find the time spent by YPL necessary or proper, and allow this item in full in the amount of $15,750.00.

Items D1 and D2

6. These items involve the time spent by YPL for perusing the Strike Out Summons (15 minutes) and the affirmation of Mr Yip filed on 12 June 2012 (60 minutes).  I do not agree that perusing these documents would only require 25 minutes as suggested by the solicitors for the Respondents.  These items necessarily include time for reading as well as considering these documents.  I consider the appropriate time for items D1 and D2 are 10 minutes ($583.00) and 45 minutes ($2,625.00) respectively.

Item D3

7. Having considered the contents of Mr Chan’s 3^rd affirmation filed on 13 July 2012, I am not persuaded that CML’s involvement is required, especially in view of the seniority of YPL.  Since this is the main affidavit in opposition, I agree it is necessary or proper for FMC to prepare the same and for YPL to review, revise and finalise the same.  In the circumstances, I allow 50 minutes for FMC ($917.00) and allow YPL’s 30 minutes of time spent in full ($1,750.00).

Item D4

8. I allow 15 minutes by FMC ($275.00) under this item.

Items D6 and D7

9. The Liquidators claim 90 minutes of time spent by YPL for reviewing the hearing bundle, chronology of events and skeleton arguments served by the solicitors for the Respondents, and 60 minutes of time spent by YPL for the preparation for hearing.  The solicitors for the Respondents suggest there should be reduction to 45 minutes and 30 minutes respectively in view of the involvement of counsel.  Whilst I accept that instructing solicitors should review the hearing bundle, chronology of events and skeleton arguments and prepare for hearings, given that counsel has been instructed to attend both the call‑over and substantive hearings, the purpose of such efforts by the relevant solicitor should not be to have a full-scale in depth study but to familiarise himself with the arguments and documents to assist counsel.  I consider the time necessary or proper for such purpose is 45 minutes ($2,625.00) for item D6 and 40 minutes ($2,333.00) for item D7.

Item D8

10. The call‑over hearing on 14 June 2012 took about half hour and the substantive hearing on 23 June 2012 took about 4.5 hours.  Time spent under this item is allowed at 5 hours ($17,500.00).

Item D10

11. I do not agree that this item cannot be allowed under summary assessment of costs.  However, in light of the nature of the application and the seniority of YPL, I consider that CML’s involvement is unnecessary as the matter is within the competence of FMC and YPL.  This item is disallowed.

Item E

12. I bear in mind that counsel was called the bar in 2007, but the subject application involves legal issues and statutory interpretation, which matters require useful legal research and submissions by counsel.  I allow counsel’s fee in the sum of $47,000.00 in full.

Conclusion

13. The total costs of the Liquidators on their statement of costs are assessed at HK$95,498.00 (being $2,000.00 (B) + HK$15,750.00 (C) + HK$583.00 (D1) + HK$2,625.00 (D2) + HK$2,667.00 (D3) + HK$275.00 (D4) + HK$1,750.00 (D5) + HK$2,625.00 (D6) + HK$2,333.00 (D7) + HK$17,500.00 (D8) + HK$275.00 (D9) + HK$47,000.00 (E) + HK$115.00 (F)). I therefore order that the Respondents shall forthwith pay costs in the sum of HK$95,498.00 to the Liquidators.