YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

HCA 1341/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1341 OF 2014

____________

____________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.  By a decision dated 20 December 2016 (“the Decision”), I made various costs order nisi. This is a decision dealing with variation of the nisi orders and summary assessment of YDL’s costs.

Costs granted under paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Decision

2.  These relate to costs granted to YDL for making representation on the material non-disclosure issue (“the representation”).

3.  Ricky Liu seeks to vary that order by asking for no order as to costs.  It was legitimate for YDL to respond by their letter dated 6 January 2017 and I have taken that letter into account.

4.  It was true that what directly triggered the court’s directions for YDL to make the representation was §42 of the reply submission of Ms Linda Chan SC (“the reply submission”).  YDL did not disclose the resolution to cancel YDL’s seals and chops.  No blame could be laid on Ricky Liu’s counsel in placing emphasis on a specific aspect (recovery of the chop and seal) of YDL’s application. If YDL took the view that the emphasis was misplaced, its legal team could have made submissions in response at the injunction hearing.  Submission from an opponent often requires immediate response at a hearing. YDL could not be heard to say that they did not have the opportunity to properly read or review the content of the reply submission or address the court on the same. 

5.  It was also true that it was the court, not Ricky Liu, who required YDL to make the representation.  However, a more fundamental fact was that Ricky Liu was in possession of the old chop and seal and had not surrendered them to YDL until 3 months after the injunction was granted. He had probably kept it from even his own counsel and that was why the reply submission was made at the hearing of the authority summons.

6.  Despite YDL’s request in preparation for the representation, Ricky Liu has hardly come up with any convincing evidence to support the alleged non-disclosure except in relation to a resolution. However, there was evidence to show that he should have known of the creation of the new chop. 

7.  Ricky Liu’s submission in response to the representation went beyond merely highlighting facts to assist the court.  He persisted in justifying the reply submission, obviously trying to achieve the draconian consequence of discharging the injunction and setting aside the present action, a result which he had always wanted. 

8.  I see no reason for varying the costs order.  I make the order nisi absolute and dismiss Ricky Liu’s application to vary.

9.  On quantum, as the representation was on a very focused issue, there was no justification for more than one fee earner.  I allow a notional rate of $4,000 per hour.  I also reduce the fees of counsel as the issues involved were not complicated.  The rest is a matter of quantum.  I summarily assess the costs of YDL at $64,000, inclusive of the costs for opposing Ricky Liu’s application to vary.