INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE INC. v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "CONVENIENCE CONTAINER"

HCAJ150/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 150 OF 2003

--------------------------------

Admiralty Action in rem Against the Ship or Vessel
“Convenience Container” (Singapore Flag)

AND

HCAJ153/2003

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO. 153 OF 2003

--------------------------------

Admiralty Action in rem Against the Ship or Vesse
“Liberty Container” (Singapore Flag)

----------------------------------------

(HEARD TOGETHER)

-------------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------

1. I have before me an application for gross sum assessment of costs of the application in the actions brought by the three plaintiffs in 3 actions which were heard together.  The applications are for challenge to jurisdiction and were heard by me on a number of days.  The date of the judgment was 5 June 2007. 

2. This is an exceptional case by any standard — exceptionally difficult, exceptionally complex, exceptionally interesting and exceptionally well-run.  As can be seen, the representations at the hearing were by the leading firms in town and by the leading practitioners in town :  for the plaintiffs in HCAJ150, HCAJ151and HCAJ153 of 2003, the subject of today’s determination of gross sum assessment, they were then represented by Messrs Johnson, Stokes & Master, and Mr Amos was in charge of the case with counsel Mr Colin Wright.  Both of them of course are specialists.  On the side of the defendants, there was the well-known firm of Messrs Holman Fenwick & Willan, with leading counsel Mr Charles Sussex and Miss Cruden.  There was in addition Messrs Stephenson Harwood & Lo instructed Mr Charles Haddon-Cave representing another set of plaintiffs.  The case took a long time to resolve, and that reflected the complexity and the difficulty of the case.  The judgment ran for some 39 pages.  Substantial affidavits came in and in particular there were complicated and complex affidavits from Singapore lawyers and there were also both English law and Australian law authorities.  A large number of legal principles were involved. 

3. I have looked at the plaintiffs’ brief note of the Statement of Costs of the gross sum assessment.  It can be broken down into disbursements of some $400,000 odd and profit costs of solicitors of some $600,000 odd, adding up to $1.1 million.  Objection was taken by the defendants, and their contention was that only some less than two-thirds should be awarded, that is, some $650,000.  It was argued or suggested that there were three issues and the plaintiffs were only involved with one issue.  But that one issue of liquidation point took some 95% to 97% of the time.  So most of the time was really spent on that most difficult and unusual liquidation point.

4. I have looked at the Statement of Costs, there was really no challenge to counsel’s fees on the disbursements that adding up to $400,000 plus.  The challenge really therefore was to profit costs. 

5. I have no doubt that this was a case where there was full justification for all the figures stated in the Statement of Costs of the plaintiffs.  There is no question of padding or unreasonableness in the figures put forward before me.  In my view this is an exceptional case, and if one compares this case to any large commercial litigation, one would think the total fees charged are quite reasonable. 

6. I therefore allowed in full the Statement of Costs put forward.  I also approve the 3 draft orders put before me of dividing the $1,101,971.60 by three, so that each of the draft orders would have one-third of the costs.  That is my determination.