CHAN CHI HUNG v. LAM SHEK WU

HCPI 401/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 401 OF 2001

____________

__________________________________

ASSESSMENT OF GROSS SUM COSTS

__________________________________

1. At the conclusion of the judgment delivered by me on 12 November I stated that I would apply Order 62 r 9(4)(b) and assess costs on a gross sum basis. Directions were given for the successful Defendant's solicitors to submit a short statement of profit costs and disbursements and for the Plaintiff's solicitors to do likewise in respect of their Legal Aid Bill, with any objection by them to the Defendant's solicitors costs. The Department of Legal Aid were also invited to submit any objections to the Defendant's solicitors and the Plaintiff's solicitors statement of costs.

2. This was an extremely simple 'running down' action. Only the respective parties gave evidence. I decided it on liability and therefore there was no need for evidence on quantum, in the form of medical reports, to be adduced and considered, although I accept that both firms of solicitors would have prepared the case on a full basis. The trial lasted less than a half-day. It was estimated for two days.

The Defendant's Solicitors Costs

3. According to the Defendant's Solicitors four practitioners within the firm were involved at one stage or other in handling one of the simplest actions to come before me. The overall profit costs and copying charges are claimed at a little over $416,000. This is unwarranted. I am not prepared to sanction a charging basis of $4,000 per hour for mundane work; the other hourly rates are also too high for such straightforward litigation. I do not accept that some of the work justified the length of time claimed to have been spent on the items e.g. Lists of documents of Plaintiff (with documents mentioned) 6 hours. There is also duplication of work. For example it is not acceptable for more than one fee earned at a conference to be charged for. In a simple case like this, it is difficult to understand why 3 practitioners attended a conference with the Defendant and even why the insurance company client attended. In respect of documents drafted the Defence did not justify 2 hours. It was twice the length necessary. The particulars of contributory negligence were far too long - there were 12 when 3 were sufficient. The remainder were for the most part repetition with the change of an odd word or two.

4. For the statement of costs for the assessment it is claimed, that it involved 15 hours work. This is just not credible. A file should be maintained in such a way that the straightforward information as to attendances and time spent is easily collated and reproduced. $24,500 is claimed for the simple paper exercise I required. This is not acceptable for such a simple exercise. Solicitors must be prepared at short notice to be able to refer to their file records for assessment of time and complexity for such costs.

5. For the profit costs I will allow the gross sum of $100,000. An additional $20,000 will be allowed for copy documents, preparation, delivery, and service, making a total of $120,000.

Disbursements

6. The fees for two reports are claimed for Dr Lau Man Tsang Richard but the second is only a 11/2 page letter and not relevant. The total is not broken down. I allow $8,000.

7. Counsel's fees are allowed at $15,000 for the Advice and $50,000 for the Brief fee. These are party and party allowances. There is clearly a solicitor and own client element in the fees agreed for counsel for which the Defendant's insurers are responsible.

8. I will additionally allow $722 for translation, travelling and colour copy charges.

9. The total is therefore $120,000 + $65,000 + 8,000 + 722 = $193,722

The Plaintiff's Solicitors' Legal Aid Costs

Profit costs

10. These will be allowed at $100,000. The comments about the straightforward nature of the case, duplication of work, and high rate of charging have already been made in respect of the Defendant's bill and are equally valid. The Legal Aid Department's points of objection are also valid.

Disbursements

11. Counsel's fees at $48,000 which are reasonable, are not disputed; similarly the medical experts fee of $2,000. The trial bundle was unnecessarily large and I will allow the photocopying at $750 only.

12. The total of the assessment is thus $150,750.