|
HCA 22/2017
[2021] HKCFI 841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 22 OF 2017
______________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
BMS GROUP INTERNATIONAL LIMITED |
Plaintiff |
and |
| |
JUSTIN LIM SHAO CHERM |
1st Defendant |
| |
ROBERT LIM HIK WAH |
2nd Defendant |
| |
ADMIRAL SPORTSWEAR PVT. LTD. |
3rd Defendant |
| |
AIRONA MARKETING SDN. BHD |
4th Defendant |
| |
SPORTSWEAR BRANDS SRL |
5th Defendant |
| |
STREAM ENTERPRISE (M) SDN. BHD |
6th Defendant |
| |
POWER TEC FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES SDN. BHD |
7th Defendant |
______________
Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers
Date of Statement of Costs by the 7th Defendant: 20 January 2021
Date of Grounds of Objection by the Plaintiff: 5 February 2021
Date of Reply to the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Objection by the 7th Defendant: 19 February 2021
Date of Decision on Costs: 29 March 2021
_______________________
DECISION ON COSTS
_______________________
1. By my decision handed down on 17 December 2020, I dismissed D7’s appeal, and allow P’s application for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 3. I make a costs order nisi that P shall have the costs of the appeal save the costs occasioned by the 2 adjournments, which costs are to D7.
2. On 30 December 2020, D7 wrote in for costs of P’s applications for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 2 and Proposed RASOC/Ver 3, together with the costs occasioned by the 2 adjournments which I have already ordered. The Statement of Costs was lodged on 20 January 2021.
3. I agree that D7 should have the costs of P’s applications for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 2 and Proposed RASOC/Ver 3.
4. P filed its Grounds of Objection on 5 February 2021. D7 filed its Reply on 19 February 2021.
5. Bearing in mind the nature of the appeal, and having regard to the cases cited to me, I am of the view that the instruction of Mr Sham is sufficient to deal with the appeal, and it is not necessary to engage a co‑counsel. I disallow the related counsel fees at Part F of the Statement.
6. I accept the objections made on P’s behalf that Parts C and D are excessive.
7. I allow counsel’s fee incurred on drafting, as being occasioned by P’s application for amendment of the ASOC as per the Proposed RASOC/Ver 3. The sum of HK$50,000 is however on the high side, which I only allow half.
8. Applying a broad brush approach, I summarily assessed D7 related costs at HK$280,000.
9. I have received no submissions as to how and when the assessed sum is to be paid. As I have awarded costs of the appeal save the 2 adjournments to P, set‑off between the parties may arise. I therefore make no order in this regard.
|
(Keith Yeung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
Statement of Costs and Reply to the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Objection
by Tang and So, for the 7th Defendant
Grounds of Objection by Cheung & Yip, for the Plaintiff
|