|
HCMP 1082/2017
[2019] HKCFI 3067
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1082 OF 2017
________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) of the Laws of Hong Kong |
|
and |
| |
IN THE MATTER of Order 70 of the
Rules of the High Court |
| |
and |
| |
IN THR MATTER of a civil matter now pending in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle under No 2:13-CV-1034 MJP |
________________
| Before: |
Madam Recorder Yvonne Cheng SC in Chambers |
| Date of Respondents’ Statement of Costs: |
26 November 2019 |
| Date of Applicant’s Objection to Statement of Costs: |
10 December 2019 |
| Date of Handing Down Decision: |
23 December 2019 |
_________________________________________________
DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
_________________________________________________
1. In my ruling of 12 November 2019 (“12 November Ruling”),I made an order nisi that the costs of the Individuals’ (the Respondents’) application (made by summons of 29 July 2019) should be paid by the Kyko Companies (the Applicants), to be summarily assessed. I now give my ruling on the summary assessment.
2. I adopt the broad-brush approach referred to in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the 12 November Ruling.
3. The Individuals have claimed $189,783 in their statement of costs of 26 November 2019. This is disproportionate for a simple application on paper to vary a costs order nisi, seeking (a) a certificate for two counsel and (b) summary assessment of costs.
4. In respect of section A, for the reasons given in paragraph 14 of the 12 November Ruling, I would disallow any costs of GL.
5. In respect of section B, the Individuals accept item B1, but object to the number of attendances in B2 and B3, exceeding the number of times which documents had to be filed or served. I agree and allow $617 as proposed by the Kyko Companies.
6. In respect of section C, I bear in mind that the written submissions were prepared by counsel and were for a simple application to vary a costs order nisi. The involvement of three fee earners appears to involve some duplication. The time claimed for attendance on clients is on the high side. It should not have been necessary to involve Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen LLP. No reason has been given for departing from the general rule that costs for drafting the statement of costs will generally not be granted (see paragraph 13 of Practice Direction 14.3). Overall, I would allow $8,000 for this section.
7. In respect of section D, items D1 and D2 relate to the Individuals’ substantive application to set aside the examination order rather than their application to vary the costs order nisi. Items D6 to D8 appear to involve duplication, given that counsel was instructed to prepare the submissions. Item D11 should not be allowed as the costs of gathering information and drafting statements of costs are generally not granted (see paragraph 13 of Practice Direction 14.3). Overall, I would allow $13,000 for this section.
8. In respect of section E, I would allow 8 hours for preparation of the written submissions and 2 hours for preparation of the written reply submissions. The costs claimed for the law costs draftsman are not allowed. No explanation has been given as to why the Individuals have claimed substantial costs for gathering information and drafting their statement of costs,[1] given the guidance in paragraph 13 of Practice Direction 14.3, and the Individuals’ acceptance of the same on their earlier application to vary the costs order nisi of 16 July 2019. Overall, I would allow $45,000 for this section.
9. Accordingly, I assess the Individuals’ costs at HK$66,617.
| |
(Yvonne Cheng SC) |
| |
Recorder of the High Court |
Eversheds Sutherland, solicitors for the applicants
Jones Day, solicitors for the respondents
[1] $63,000 for item E2, apparently representing “no less than 35 hours” of work by the law costs draftsman, in addition to the $1,300 in item C6 and $1,950 in item D11.
|