THE PRACTICE REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS v. NG KAY LAM

CACV 343/2021

[2023] HKCA 1039

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 343 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF

THE HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PROCEEDINGS NO D-18-1402P)

__________________

__________________

__________________

___________________________________

DECISION ON　COSTS

___________________________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Decision of the Court):

1.  On 12 May 2023, this court handed down Judgment¹ dismissing the appeal of Mr Ng Kay Lam against the finding and the order for costs and sanctions made by the Disciplinary Committee of the Hong Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“HKICPA”) in respect of a complaint made by the Practice Review Committee (“PRC”) of the HKICPA.

2.  We also ordered Mr Ng to pay the costs of the PRC and gave directions for the PRC to submit a statement of costs for summary assessment, for which Mr Ng was given leave to file submissions in opposition.

3.1  After the PRC submitted a statement of costs, Mr Ng filed “reply submissions” in which he:

(1)  repeated some “errors” of the HKICPA/PRC, the materiality of which this court has already rejected in its Judgment [Mr Ng’s submissions, §4(a) to (d)];

(2)  claimed that the purpose of the appeal was not solely for his own benefit but also for the benefit of small and medium-sized member firms [§4(e)];

(3)  alleged that liability for “excessive legal costs” would exacerbate his financial difficulties as he is considering retirement in the near future [§4(f)].

3.2  Mr Ng submitted that as the implementation of the Cancellation Order would effectively force him out of the profession, there should be no order as to costs, or alternatively a reduction of the costs by 90%.  There was no submission that any particular item in the statement of costs was excessive.

Discussion

4.  As the parties had agreed that costs should follow the event², there is no ground to make no order as to costs now. 

5.  As to the quantum of costs, none of the matters submitted by Mr Ng warrants a reduction of the costs by 90% as he proposed.  We do not consider that any of the issues was of such general importance to the profession that a reduction of costs should be made.  As for the submissions based on Mr Ng’s personal situation (even assuming the veracity of those submissions in the absence of evidence), it also does not justify a reduction in costs.  As can be seen from the Judgment [§5], Mr Ng was no stranger to litigation and would have been aware of its costs aspect.

6.1  However, having examined the statement of costs, we consider it would be appropriate to reduce:

-  Miss Au-Young’s billable hours by 1.4 hours for item D2, and

-  Miss Cheng’s billable hours by a total of 12 hours as follows:

item C1, 3 hours

item C3, 3 hours                

item D1, 3 hours and

item D2, 3 hours.

6.2  Accordingly, deducting $6300 ($4,500 per hour x 1.4 hours) for Miss Au-Young and $38,400 ($3,200 per hour x 12 hours) for Miss Cheng, we would order Mr Ng to pay the PCR its costs summarily assessed in the sum of $142,506 (total bill of $187,206 less deduction of $44,700).