|
HCMP 479/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 479 OF 2007
_________________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159
|
| |
AND |
| |
IN THE MATTER of Richards Butler, a firm of solicitors practicing laws in The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
_________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
| |
And |
|
| |
RICHARDS BUTLER, SOLICITORS (a firm) |
Defendant |
_________________________
HCMP 480/2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 480 OF 2007
_________________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159
|
| |
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of Richards Butler, a firm of solicitors practicing laws in The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
_________________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
PARKFIELD PROPERTIES LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
| |
AND |
|
| |
RICHARDS BUTLER, SOLICITORS (a firm) |
Defendant |
_________________________
Coram : Before Master J. Wong in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 21 January 2008
Date of Decision: 29 February 2008
_______________
D E C I S I O N
_______________
Applications
1. There are two applications by the Plaintiffs for an order directing the bills of their former solicitors to be taxed.
Background
2. In 2005, the Plaintiffs commenced DCCJ 1087/2005 and 1088/2005 for damages caused by their contractors in carrying out certain renovation works. The Defendant acted for them therein from August 2005 to January 2007.
3. Out of it, the Defendant issued a total of 8 bills, particulars are as follows:
| “ Bill |
Date of Delivery |
Amount Charged (Longwood) |
Amount Charged (Parkfield) |
Payment Date |
| Bill on Merits |
20.10.2005 |
$48,443.70 |
$48,585 |
16.6.2006 |
| First Bill |
22.2.2006 |
$128,167.66 |
$240,599.8 |
11.7.2006 |
| Second Bill |
31.7.2006 |
$18,309 |
$26,860 |
Not paid |
| Third Bill |
10.10.2006 |
$14,602 |
$78,913.48 |
Not paid” |
(paragraph 2 of skeleton of Plaintiffs’ Counsel)
4. On 12 March 2007, the Plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings seeking to have all the 8 bills to be taxed by this Court. The Defendant opposed to it.
5. I heard the substantive argument on 21 January 2008. Mr. Martin Wong of Counsel acted for the Plaintiffs and Ms. Alice Hutchens represented the Defendant. Upon hearing from them, I reserved my decision to be delivered. I now do so.
Ruling
6. Having considered all the evidence authorities and submissions from the parties, I have decided to decline the application in relation to the 2 Bills on Merits, but agreed to refer the remaining 6 bills for taxation. My reasons appear in below.
Reasons
7. In relation to the Second and Third Bills, they have not been paid and are still within 12 months from their delivery from commencement of the proceedings herein, the Plaintiffs have to satisfy me that discretion should be exercised in favour of an order for taxation. I am persuaded to do so by the following factors.
| |
(a) |
The Plaintiffs were not informed of the right to tax the solicitors’ bills at the material times. Once they had been aware of it in early 2007, the proceedings herein were then shortly instituted. |
| |
(b) |
The amounts involved in these bills are relatively small. The Plaintiffs are willing to make payment-in. I agree to accept that they do not intend to evade the liability to pay, but instead, only want to make sure how much they should pay in the circumstances. |
8. As to the Bills on Merits and First Bills, they have been paid, the Plaintiffs shall show “special circumstances” as well as the exercise of the court’s discretion in favour of them.
| |
(a) |
They can only do so in the First Bills. |
| |
(b) |
The Bills on Merits are initial bills issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs. They were relatively small and within the quote or estimate of the Defendant. |
| |
|
“13. We estimate that our fees for preparing a list of documents and then an advice on the merits will be approximately HK$30,000 – HK$50,000 exclusive of disbursements in relation to each property. (This fee quote takes into account the costs we have already incurred).” |
| |
|
(letter of 25 August 2005) |
| |
|
Further, on balance, I do not consider that there is overcharge and protest or pressure of payment thereof on the part of the Plaintiffs. |
| |
(c) |
On the other hand, the circumstances surrounding the First Bills are different and special. |
| |
|
(i) |
The First Bills, together with others, far exceed the original estimate made by the Defendant. |
| |
|
|
“14. It is difficult to provide you with an estimate of the total fees that would be involved in taking the matter right through until trial. As a broad indication, we think the fees would be approximately HK$300,000 – HK$500,000 exclusive of disbursements for each property. These fees assume that we would instructed a junior Counsel (barrister) on your behalf.” |
| |
|
|
(letter of 25 August 2005) |
| |
|
|
As indicated by Mr. Wong, the original quote covered the whole proceedings, including the costs of trial. They usually took up a large portion of the total costs involved. However, up to the Third Bills, no witness statements, advice on evidence and so forth have been done. |
| |
|
(ii) |
Ms. Hutchens tried to explain by leading me going through the relevant correspondence with the Plaintiffs. Briefly, extra costs were spent mainly on the expert. The Defendant had to re-write the expert report. There was problem of the expert instructed by the Plaintiff’s previous solicitors. In this respect, I am not prepared at this stage to conclude on the question of overcharge, but there is certainly good justification to look into the charge of the solicitors for over $300,000 when the expert himself only asked for $30,000. |
| |
|
(iii) |
When perusing through the said correspondence, I also note that the Plaintiffs from time to time showed concern over the rising of the costs. Though the Defendant did try to explain why it had happened, the Plaintiff was not informed of the possible redress by way of taxation. |
Conclusion
9. In the circumstances, I direct that:
| |
(1) |
Upon the payment of the total sums of $138,684.48 into the Court by the Plaintiffs within 21 days from the date hereof, the First, Second and Third Bills delivered to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant in relation to both DCCJ 1087/2005 and 1088/2005 will be referred to the Taxing Master to be taxed and that the Defendant do upon the taxation give credit for all sums of money received by them from or on account of the Plaintiffs and refund what they may on such taxation appear to have been overpaid; |
| |
(2) |
The Taxing Master do tax the costs of the reference and certify what upon such reference shall be found due to or from either party in respect of the bill and demand, and the costs of the reference to be charged according to the event of the taxation, pursuant to the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159; and |
| |
(3) |
The Defendant shall not commence or prosecute any action or suit touching the demand pending the reference. |
Costs
10. I do not have the benefit on the question of costs from the parties. However, the Plaintiffs succeeded in persuading me to refer 6 out of the 8 bills for taxation. I believe that half of the costs incurred from the commencement of these proceedings up to the date hereof should be in the costs of the taxation, including all costs reserved on previous occasions as well as Certificate for Counsel, if applicable, for hearing on 21 January 2008. Otherwise, there should be no order as to costs. I so make an order nisi accordingly.
| |
(Jack Wong)
Master of the High Court |
Mr. Martin Wong instructed by Messrs. Chong & Partners for Plaintiffs.
Ms. A. Hutchens of Messrs. Richard Butler for Defendant.
|