WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

HCMP 632/2012 and
HCA 373/2014

[2020] HKCFI 920

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 632 OF 2012

____________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 373 OF 2014

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  In paragraph 118 of the decision dated 23 January 2020 (“the Decision”), this court made an order nisi that the 1^st Plaintiff do bear 75% of the costs of the Defendants’ summons. This is the 1^st Defendant’s summons to vary the order nisi (“the costs summons”) so that:

(a)  Not only the 1^st Plaintiff but that both Plaintiffs should bear the costs; and

(b)  The costs order should cover all the costs reserved, including those reserved by DHCJ Keith Yeung on 8 February 2019.

2.  Upon receipt of the costs summons, this Court has, on 11 March 2020, in accordance with the usual practice, given directions for disposal of the costs summons on the papers, including directions for the lodging and service of skeleton submissions.

3.  The Plaintiffs’ solicitors, Stephenson Harwood (“SH”), has made an application to cease acting for the Plaintiffs but that application was in the process of service in Mainland China.  SH has not yet come off the record. SH confirmed by letter dated 18 March 2020 that they had informed their clients of the Court’s directions but have not received any instructions from the Plaintiffs.

4.  Accordingly, the costs summons is dealt with on an uncontested basis.

5.  With regard to the first matter for variation, the 1^st Defendant’s summons to vary the Undertakings (“underlying summons”) was directed against both Plaintiffs.  Although it was the 1^st Plaintiff’s conduct which gave rise to the underlying summons, he was clearly also acting on behalf of and for the benefit of the 2^nd Plaintiff.  I therefore agree with the 1^st Defendant that the costs order should be varied and made against both Plaintiffs. 

6.  With regard to the second matter for variation, an ex parte application was refused by Yau J on 1 February 2019.  The inter partes underlying summons came on for hearing before DHCJ Keith Yeung SC (as he then was) on 8 February 2019.  DHCJ Keith Yeung SC declined to grant any urgent interim relief to the 1^st Defendant but adjourned the summons for substantive hearing with directions for the filing of evidence.  The learned judge stated that the case had a long history and was not uncomplicated and urgent interim relief could not be granted before substantive arguments.  He therefore reserved the question of costs for that hearing.  The 1^st Defendant now asks for costs of that hearing.

7.  Having heard the underlying summons substantively, I entirely agree with the reasons why DHCJ Keith Yeung SC refused to grant urgent interim relief.  I decline to grant any order for costs for the argument for interim relief.  Any costs should be limited to the usual costs of a directions hearing before a summons judge.

8.  In summary, I vary the costs order nisi so that both Plaintiffs shall bear 75% of the costs of the underlying summons; and that costs of 8 February 2019 be limited to the costs of a directions hearing.

9.  Looking at the 1^st Defendant’s costs statement, I find that the costs claimed for the underlying summons are grossly excessive.  Given the long hours that counsel spent on meetings with clients/solicitors and the fees charged for drafting affirmations, the skeleton submission was grossly inadequate in setting out the necessary factual and legal framework to assist the court.  I summarily assess the 75% costs ordered and costs of 8 February 2019 at $430,000. 

10.  Costs of the costs summons should follow the event and be to the 1^st Defendant.  The 75% order does not apply.  However, the costs of $115,442 sought is grossly excessive having regard to the lack of any complicated issue and the lack of submissions from the Plaintiffs.  There is no basis to engage counsel to argue such a simple costs summons.  I summarily assess the costs for the costs summons at $10,000 with no certificate for counsel.

Conclusion

11.  I order as follows:

(1)  The costs order nisi dated 23 January 2020 is varied so that both Plaintiffs shall bear 75% of the 1^st Defendant’s costs.  Such costs shall include costs reserved on 8 February 2019 as if it were a directions hearing.

(2)  Costs under sub-paragraph (1) are summarily assessed in the sum of $430,000.

12.  Costs of the costs summons be to the 1^st Defendant summarily assessed at $10,000.