FANTASTIC STATE LTD v. CHIN WAI PING AND ANOTHER

HCA 1549/2016

[2020] HKCFI 3165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1549 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

_________________________________

DECISION

_________________________________

1.  This is a review of taxation.

2.  By his orders and judgment made on 28 May, 20 August and 16 October 2019, Deputy High Court Judge Leung (“the Trial Judge”) awarded the Plaintiff i.e. the receiving party (“RP”) the costs of this action on liability up to 28 May 2019 and in connection with 3 letters (all to be taxed on District Court Scale) against the 1^st Defendant i.e. the paying party (“PP”).  Pursuant to the said costs orders, RP filed its Bill of Costs on 9 March 2020 (“the Bill”).  PP in turn filed its List of Objections on 6 May 2020 (“LOO”).

3.  I taxed the Bill by way of oral hearing on 14 October 2020.  Mr. Adrian Wong (“Mr Wong”) of law costs draftsman (“LCD”) appeared for PP at the said hearing whereas Mr Nelson Yu (“Mr Yu”) of LCD appeared for RP. 

4.  On 28 October 2020, PP took out a summons (“the Review Summons”) to review 37 taxed items of the Bill, particularizing its grounds for their review by way of a schedule annexed to the Review Summons (“the Grounds”).  On 11 November 2020, RP filed its Answers to PP’s Objections for Review (“the Answers”). 

5.  On 13 November 2020, I conducted the said review by way of oral hearing with the assistance of the same 2 LCDs appearing for the parties at the taxation hearing. 

6.  At the said review hearing, Mr Wong agreed that this court allowed the time or amount for items Nos. 13(a), 19(a), 20, 21(a) & (b), 23, 26, 28, 53, 62, 70, 71, 95, 96 in Section A and items Nos 2, 9 & 9a in Section C of the Bill at the taxation hearing on parties’ own agreement and thus they are not subject to review.  He applied to withdraw PP’s review on these 15 items and I allowed. 

7.  The Grounds put forward by PP to review the remaining 22 taxed items of the Bill are identical, namely, the time or amount allowed is excessive.  At the said review hearing, Mr Yu put before me the same 6 taxation bundles he prepared, and put before me, at the taxation hearing.  After hearing him and Mr Wong, I reserved, and now give, my review decision. 

The background of the action

8.  In June 2016, RP began this action for recovering possession of a portion of a piece of land owned by it in Tai Po wrongfully trespassed by PP (“the Trespassed Portion”), prohibitory injunction against further trespass, mandatory injunction for removing or dismantling structures erected on the Trespassed Portion, mesne profit and interest. 

9.  PP filed her Defence and Counterclaim (“D&C”) in October 2016 and advanced a counterclaim of adverse possession to the Trespassed Portion against RP. 

10.  In June 2017, the parties were given leave to exchange expert land surveyor’s reports on topography and use of the Trespassed Portion from 2003 to present by reference to aerial photos and survey sheets and the parties’ experts were to meet after exchange of their reports on a without prejudice basis to prepare a joint statement.  The parties had by October 2017 exchanged their expert reports and their experts had also jointly prepared a joint statement. 

11.  In November 2017, the parties were further given leave to adduce expert evidence on quantum, limited to one surveyor each, over market rent of the Trespassed Portion from 2015 to present.  RP filed its expert valuation report later but PP did not. 

12.  On 5 June 2018, RP’s solicitors set this action down for a 5- day trial in the fixture list, with 1 factual and 2 expert witnesses for RP, and 2 factual and 1 expert witnesses for PP.  

13.  On the day before pre-trial review (“PTR”), PP took out a summons returnable before the Trial Judge seeking leave to withdraw her counterclaim and also her defence so far it relates to liability.  After hearing parties’ counsels, the Trial Judge at PTR hearing on 28 May 2019 gave leave to PP to withdraw as she sought, entered judgment on liability against her (with terms of orders sought in prayers of Statement of Claim (“SOC”) to be formulated later) and gave directions for trial on quantum to proceed at the trial days as scheduled. 

14.  On 14 August 2019, PP took out another summons returnable before the Trial Judge on the 1^st day of trial seeking leave to adduce a supplemental witness statement on quantum.  On the 1^st day of trial i.e. 20 August 2019, after hearing parties’ counsels, the Trial Judge ordered PP to deliver up vacant possession of the Trespassed Portion and to remove/dismantle all fences and illegal structures erected thereon.  By parties’ consent, PP was also ordered to pay $330,000 to RP in full and final settlement of the issue of quantum (inclusive of all costs in the action on quantum issue since 10 June 2016). 

Discussion

15.  I have carefully revisited my assessment of all the remaining taxed items of the Bill subject to review in light of all submissions and materials put before me. 

16.  I have throughout reminded myself that taxation (and review) before me was conducted on party and party basis, and on such basis, there shall be allowed all such costs as were necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the parties whose costs are being taxed. 

17.  In exercising my discretion as taxing master in taxing (and reviewing) individual items (and counsel’s fee) of the Bill, I have had regard to all relevant circumstances of the action, including the 7 matters set out in paragraph 1(2) of Part II of First Schedule to O.62, the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A (“RHC”).  

Section A of the Bill

Item 6 – Drafting SOC in July 2016 allowed at 2.5 hours LNM^[1]

18.  Mr Wong is, I think, right to stress that the body of SOC is 4- page-long, consisting of 9 paragraphs and 8 prayers.  He further reminded me that LNM had prepared letters before action for RP in April and May 2016 and must therefore, he argued, be familiar with the case when she drafted the SOC. 

19.  At the same time, I agree with Mr Yu that this is the single most important document for RP in this action and that LNM needed to review land title and other documents referred to in SOC, including the plan annexed thereto, in order to draft it.  At times, the drafting of a succinct piece of pleadings, I also agree with him, needs time for review and revision before it is finalized and completed. 

20.  Having reconsidered the contents of the SOC and all other circumstances, I reduce the time allowed to 2 hours. 

Item 8 – Drafting Reply and Defence to Counterclaim in November 2016 allowed at 2.5 hours LNM

21.  Mr Wong again emphasized, and I agree, that this is a short document consisting of 5 pages and 15 paragraphs.  He further pointed to the fact that LNM spent as short as 30 minutes in considering D&C in October 2016 and therefore, he argued, LNM must be familiar with the task of this item.  No new evidence, he submitted, needed to be considered by LNM in drafting Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, whose time spent should, he argued, be less than that allowed for drafting SOC. 

22.  However, I agree with Mr Yu that LNM needed to tackle fresh allegation, and particulars, of adverse possession raised by PP in her Counterclaim for the first time (which counterclaim could have the extraordinary effect of extinguishing RP’s title over the Trespassed Portion if upheld). 

23.  After reconsideration, I reduce the time allowed to 2 hours.  The counter suggestion of 1 hour for this item (and for drafting SOC) in LOO is, in my view, unrealistically too low. 

Item 9 – Drafting Request for Further and Better Particulars of D&C in November 2016 allowed at 3 hours LNM

24.  Mr Wong submitted that this request was drafted by LNM as short as 6 days after she drafted Reply, involving, he argued, the same evidence and allegations upon which she should be well familiar from drafting and considering earlier pleadings. 

25.  I, however, agree with Mr Yu that this request is by its nature different from earlier pleadings.  By such request, RP, I think, probed for further particulars on general or vague allegations of adverse possession raised by PP and/or sought to tie PP down to specific particulars given or to be given.  Altogether a total of 13 requests were, he pointed out and I agree, raised by LNM over 8 pages, with sub-requests within most requests.  I maintain my original assessment. 

Item 32(a) – Preparing for Mediation before mediator in May 2017 allowed at 1 hour LNM

26.  The counter-offer of 10 minutes in LOO is, Mr Wong submitted, more reasonable.  Pleadings and discovery by way of list of documents had, he argued, been completed by May 2017 such that LNM had, he said, no new allegation or evidence to prepare for in mediation.  Time had also already been spent (and charged), he stressed, for her considering mediation agreement and for a trainee solicitor (“LT”) preparing mediation bundle.  

27.  I cannot agree with Mr Wong.  Mediation is, I agree with Mr Yu, different from litigation in terms of mindset and procedures.  Merits of parties’ respective cases are only one of its many considerations.  LNM did attend the mediation session and she needed to prepare for it.  Having considered contents of the index of the mediation bundle prepared, I find 1 hour necessary and proper preparation time for LNM to make the best use of this alternative dispute resolution mechanism. 

Item 40 – Drafting Witness Statement of Leung Hon Man (“Mr Leung”) in August 2017 allowed at 3 hours LNM

28.  This witness statement, Mr Wong argued, is a short factual one consisting of only 9 paragraphs in 4 pages.  It was prepared before parties exchanged expert land surveyor reports in October 2017 and no new documents were, he said, involved for LNM to prepare the same.  The time of 3 hours claimed (and allowed in full) is, he argued, excessive.  Instead, 1 hour 10 minutes is suggested. 

29.  I disagree with Mr Wong either.  Against the backdrop of pleadings prepared and documents disclosed by parties by then, LNM, I agree with Mr Yu, prepared such witness statement with minute and full details to stand as oral evidence of Mr Leung at trial. 

30.  Mr Leung is, I think, a material witness.  He is Plaintiff’s senior manager.  He gave evidence of Plaintiff’s management of its lot since Plaintiff purchased it in about 2000, including engagement of security company for patrolling and guarding it against trespass, and the measures taken for the same.  Not only time was required for drafting, revising and finalizing the 9 paragraphs of this witness statement, further time was, I agree with Mr Yu, required for collating 1 plan and 7 photos attached to the same which Mr Leung made reference to.  My original assessment therefore stands unchanged. 

Item 41 – Considering Witness Statement of So Chi Wai (“Mr So”) in August 2017 allowed at 30 minutes LNM

31.  Mr So is the husband of the 1^st Defendant and a registered structural engineer.  He gave evidence in his statement of, inter alia, making site visits to the scene in 2003, observing completion of renovation works by contractor over, inter alia, the Trespassed Portion and enclosing of it as part of his family garden since then. 

32.  Mr Wong asked me to allow for this item the same amount of 15 minutes’ time for considering witness statement of Yau Chik Hing (Mr Yau), whose contents are, he said, more or less the same.  I disagree.  While Mr Yau was the contractor engaged for renovation works in 2003, his 2-page-long statement is shorter than the 4-page-long witness statement of Mr So.  Mr Yau focused on his works whereas Mr So gave evidence beyond that.  I am afraid Mr Wong is not comparing like against like.  His review fails. 

Item 43 – Considering including commenting on various drafts of Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor’s report in August 2017 allowed at 3 hours LNM

33.  In line with LOO, Mr Wong submitted that 1.5 hours is a more reasonable assessment for this item.  He stressed that it was not appropriate for LNM to make comments on draft expert report and that no such input was shown before me. 

34.  While I agree with Mr Yu that solicitors could, for example, make comments on formats of expert report and issues to be addressed by expert, opinion remains, I think, a matter within the expertise of expert.  As such, solicitors should not give substantive input to expert report in terms of its opinions.  In any event, having perused taxation bundles, including privileged communications between Plaintiff’s solicitors and Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor, I cannot find substantive input.  I also cannot find “various drafts” as claimed. 

35.  I had therefore focused on reasonable length of time for LNM to consider Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor’s report in light of pleadings and other evidences to be adduced.  The said report consists of 13 pages and, importantly, 34 pairs of appendix by way of aerial photos and survey sheets, with many of them marked for illustration and identification.  It is well known that much weight could be attached to such expert opinion at trial of adverse possession.  All things reconsidered, 3 hours allowed on taxation remains, I think, reasonable. 

Item 46 – Considering 1^st Defendant’s expert land surveyor’s report in October 2017 allowed at 3 hours LNM

36.  Mr Wong submitted that 3 hours are on the high side for mere considering.  There was, he argued, no need for subsequent follow-up.  I cannot agree. 

37.  First, the 1^st Defendant’s report consists of 18 pages and is supplemented by numerous plans, photos and aerial photos, with many of them marked for identification and illustration. 

38.  Secondly, LNM had to consider it in light of the pleadings and other evidence to be adduced, including contents of Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor’s report.  The parties’ expert land surveyors had yet to meet to prepare their joint statement and LNM had to be on the lookout for differences, if any, among the 2 experts. 

39.  Mr Wong also fails his review on this item. 

Item 51 - Considering including commenting on various drafts of experts’ joint statement in November 2017 allowed at 40 minutes LNM

40.  In line with LOO, 20 minutes are, Mr Wong argued, more reasonable allowance for this item.  He submitted that it was a short and straightforward reading exercise.  I disagree. 

41.  There are 3 drafts produced in the taxation bundle.  Input had apparently been made by LNM.  The finalized joint statement is 7-page-long.  The 2 experts listed out not only issues they agree but also issues they disagree by reference to paragraph numbers of their respective expert reports.  It is, I think, by no means short and straightforward.  Mr Wong’s objections fail.

Item 55 – Drafting Instructions to Counsel on 13 April 2018 allowed at 3 hours LNM

42.  Mr Wong submitted that there was no need for LNM to give “detailed” instructions to counsel.  The mere provision of pleadings, list of documents, witness statements and expert reports to counsel could, he argued, achieve the same purpose. 

43.  Not only did Plaintiff’s solicitors supply Plaintiff’s counsel with a schedule of 15 documents totaling 273 pages as suggested above, LNM had, I note, also prepared 6 pages of instructions giving brief facts of the case, outlining parties’ respective cases, the evidence of parties’ factual witnesses and the common opinion of their expert land surveyors.  Current progress of the case was relayed to counsel (including that 1^st case management conference (“CMC”) was to be held on 31 May 2018).  Plaintiff’s counsel was instructed to review pleadings and evidence, and to advise in conference on further conducts of the action. 

44.  I find the above approach of Plaintiff’s solicitors proper and necessary to introduce counsel to this new case and to the voluminous documents supplied. This was the first point in time when counsel was brought into this action.  Such detailed instructions should have, I think, saved counsel’s time (and counsel fee) and expedited counsel giving advice in conference (which happened quickly on 26 April 2018 i.e. 13 days later).  Such effort and money was, I think, well spent and justified. 

45.  All things reconsidered, 3 hours allowed is, I think necessary and proper on party to party basis. 

Item 80 – Drafting indices of Trial Bundles in August 2019 allowed at 1.5 hours XL1 ^[2]

46.  Mr Wong urged me to note that XL1 had also prepared CMC and PTR bundles. These bundles were, he argued, more or less similar to trial bundles and could be readily adapted to become the latter.  For this part, Mr Yu pointed to the difference between CMC and PTR bundles on one hand and trial bundles on the other hand. 

47.  Having noted such difference and the previous time taken by XL1 to prepare CMC and PTR bundles, and allowing at the same time change of focus at trial since 1^st Defendant’s concession at PTR, I decide to make more reduction than I did at taxation and I allow 1 hour for XL1 after reviewing this item. 

Item 83 – Considering Plaintiff’s Opening Submissions on 13 August 2019 allowed at 1 hour LNM1

48.  Mr Wong stressed that such submissions consist of only 14 pages.  Mr Yu argued, however, that it was more than a mere reading exercise.  The said submissions, he said, dealt with outstanding issue of quantum and terms of relief to be given on prayers of SOC.  LNM not only had to read them, but also had to check and think about them to see that all outstanding issues were adequately dealt with.  I think both LCDs are equally right from their own view point. 

49.  Having re-read the said submissions, I maintain my earlier assessment and reject Mr Wong’s review for this item. 

Item 84 – Considering 1^st Defendant’s Opening Submissions on 16 August 2019 allowed at 45 minutes LNM1

50.  Mr Wong again submitted that my assessment was on the high side for this item.  Plaintiff, he argued, had already instructed counsel to consider such submissions.  Mr Yu countered that, though counsel was instructed, it was still reasonable for a responsible solicitor herself to take time to consider opposing counsel’s opening submissions in the circumstances of this case. 

51.  Having re-read the said submissions, I continue to share the view of Mr Yu and I dismiss PP’s review of this item. 

Item 85 – Studying authorities in 1^st Defendant’s List of Authorities on 16 August 2019 allowed at 1 hour LNM1.

52.  Mr Wong submitted that it was more appropriate for Plaintiff’s counsel to consider, and to spend more time on, these 4 authorities.  On top of repeating his earlier submissions above, Mr Yu further argued that the 4 cases quoted in 1^st Defendant’s List of Authorities spoke for themselves.  I prefer Mr Yu’s submissions after reading the authorities.  Mr Wong also fails on this item. 

Item 87(a) – Preparing for trial before the Trial Judge on 20 August 2019 allowed at 2 hours LNM1

53.  Mr Wong pointed to the fact that time had already been given for LNM1 to consider parties’ opening submissions and cases in 1^st Defendant’s List of Authorities.  Allowance of 1 or 0.5 hour, he submitted, would be more reasonable for this item.  I disagree. 

54.  I agree with Mr Yu that it was necessary and proper for LNM1 to prepare for trial by reviewing the pleadings and evidence (the trial bundles having 286 pages in total) so as to be in a position to render such proper and necessary assistance to counsel at trial when outstanding issues of terms of relief and quantum are to be resolved.  2 hours allowed are, in my view, fair and reasonable. 

Item 93.3 – Attending perusing & considering documents in 1^st Defendant’s List of Documents (56 pages) allowed at 2.5 hours LNM

55.  30 minutes, Mr Wong argued, is fair and reasonable allowance for this item.  These are mainly, he said, simple title documents and should have been considered elsewhere in, say, expert reports. 

56.  Mr Yu for his part stressed the importance of title documents in neighbouring lands dispute like this case where RP sought vacant possession of the Trespassed Portion from PP.  Expert reports are, he argued, different documents to be considered separately in their own light. 

57.  I acknowledge the force of Mr Yu’s submissions.  But these documents in 1^st Defendant’s List of Documents, I note, consist of 7 items and 56 pages only.  One of them i.e. copy assignment had, I note, already been considered and billed as item 93.1 in Section A of the Bill.  For the remaining 6 documents, I agree with Mr Wong that 30 minutes should be fair and reasonable time to allow LNM to consider them and I therefore vary my assessment to 30 minutes. 

Item 93.4 –Attending perusing & considering documents in Plaintiff’s Supplemental List of Documents allowed at 1 hour LNM1

58.  Four documents (all of them are photos) out of total six documents disclosed in this list filed in May 2019 were, Mr Wong pointed out, the same photos attached to the witness statement of Mr Leung that LNM had drafted in August 2017.  Mr Yu disavowed any works or costs duplication, claiming that the latter related to “drafting” witness statement while this item focused on “considering” the said photos etc. 

59.  Though the works done and charged in 2017 and 2019 were different, I think it still took less time than was otherwise for LNM to “consider” these photos in 2019.  Allowing for time for her to consider the remaining 2 copy excerpts of security report which were also disclosed in the same list, I allow a total of 30 minutes for this item after review. 

Item 94 – Legal researches on security for costs including 3 authorities & O 23, RHC, allowed at 1 hour TS1^[3]

60.  Mr Wong first argued that such intended application for security for costs was never taken out and it is not open to RP to claim such costs.  Unfortunately, such argument was, I note, not raised in LOO or the Grounds and thus not open to him. 

61.  Instead, in LOO and the Grounds, general rule (8) in para 62/App/21 of Vol 1 of HKCP 2020 i.e. “solicitors are expected to be conversant with the general law, practice and procedure.  No costs for doing research on these areas will be allowed” was quoted to oppose this claim.  Mr Wong further submitted that less than 1 hour will be sufficient in any event. 

62.  While conceding O.23, RHC, is general law, Mr Yu argued that the 3 cases are researches done on specific law and ought to be paid for.  He reminded me that I have already taxed off 1 hour for XL1 and 1 hour for TS1 at taxation of this item. 

63.  Having re-read the 3 authorities concerned, I think the “counterclaim principle” therein is not general law that one should expect a solicitor to be conversant with.  In line with counter-offer at LOO, I allow only 30 minutes for TS1 after review. 

Section B1 of the Bill

Items 1 & 2 – Counsel Reviewing pleadings & witness statements and Advising client in Conference on 26 April 2018 on merits and outstanding interlocutory applications (inclusive of all preparation work & telephone conference) allowed at 6 hours totaling $15,000^[4]

64.  At review, Mr Wong submitted that 6 hours allowed remains excessive.  In LOO, the sums of $6,000 & $2,000 were respectively suggested by PP for these 2 items. 

65.  Mr Wong took no issue about the hourly rate charged by Plaintiff’s counsel and I also find it reasonable.  As Mr Yu reminded me, on parties’ agreement, Plaintiff’s counsel had admittedly spent 1 hour 15 minutes advising in Conference on 26 April 2018 (not to mention that she had also advised in telephone and not charged RP separately).  In order to so advise, Plaintiff’s counsel had to peruse and then consider her 5-page-long Instructions enclosing a schedule of 15 documents, including parties’ expert reports and joint statement, totaling 273 pages.  And Plaintiff’s counsel was, as was mentioned above, first brought into this action at this point in time. 

66.  I find 6 hours allowed by me wholly reasonable and this quantum challenge wholly without merit. 

Item 3 – Brief fee for attending PTR hearing on 28 May 2019 inclusive of all preparation work including notes of submission allowed at $25,000

67.  Mr Wong again took no issue about the then increased hourly rate of Plaintiff’s counsel^[5]. The said PTR hearing, he argued, was a short and simple one.  The fee allowed is, he argued, excessive and the counter-offer of $12,000 in LOO is more reasonable. 

68.  In terms of pre-hearing preparation, Mr Yu reminded me that Plaintiff’s counsel had, inter alia, to peruse, and consider, the contents of the PTR bundle, 1^st Defendant’s Summons to withdraw counterclaim and defence on liability (and 1^st Defendant’s affidavit in support thereof), 1^st Defendant’s counsel’s skeleton submissions for the PTR, and to prepare Plaintiff’s skeleton submission for the PTR.  In terms of time spent on the hearing itself, the PTR was fixed to last 30 minutes. 

69.  Having revisited this item, including re-reading parties’ skeleton submission for the PTR, I reduce the time allowed to 7.5 hours i.e. $21,000.

Section B2 of the Bill

Item 5 – Paid charges in August 2017 to Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor for preparing Expert Report, including fees for site survey on 26 July 2017, allowed at $77,500

70.  PP complained at the Grounds that the fee charged for this item is about “double” of fee she allegedly paid for preparing 1^st Defendant’s expert land survey report and thus it is excessive.  This submission is, I agree with the Answers, wrong in principle.  The alleged fee paid by PP for her expert report, is, I agree with Mr Yu, no yardstick for assessing the costs to be allowed to RP on RP’s expert report.  The issue to be decided is whether or not the fee incurred by RP for RP’s expert report is necessary or proper on party and party basis.  

71.  Mr Wong further complained at review hearing that no breakdown was given for the said sum of $77,500. But, looking at invoice issued by Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor dated 19 September 2017 found in taxation bundle, $23,500 was charged for site survey of the Trespassed Portion on 26 July 2017 and $54,000 was for Plaintiff’s expert report.  As Mr Yu stressed, PP made no previous complaint of lack of breakdown for this item, not even in LOO (where a counter offer of $32,000 was made by PP). 

72.  Mr Yu emphasized that the contents (and, importantly, attachments) of Plaintiff’s expert land survey report spoke for itself the substantial works and time taken to prepare the same.  I agree.  But I also discovered after review that the area of the Trespassed Portion is only 69.8 square meter and that “various drafts” of the said report as claimed by RP cannot be found in taxation bundle. 

73.  All things reconsidered, I reduce the amount allowed for this item to $60,000. 

Item 7 – Paid charges in November 2017 to Plaintiff’s expert land surveyor for preparing the Joint Statement allowed at $10,000

74.  In line with LOO, Mr Wong submitted that $5,000 would be more reasonable for this item.  I disagree.  As Mr Yu rightly submitted, the parties’ expert land surveyors had taken time to meet each other to discuss on a without prejudice basis and thereafter they had to take time to reduce into writing their agreement and disagreement.  And there are 3 drafts of the joint statement in the taxation bundle.  I remain of the view that the allowed sum of $10,000 is fair and reasonable. 

Section C of the Bill

Item 9b – Copying charges for 6 taxation bundles allowed at $1,305

75.  This claim was first orally raised by Mr Yu at the taxation hearing.  He submitted that it was necessary and proper for him to have his own spare set of all 6 taxation bundles in order to make submissions on them and to offer assistance to taxing master.  Having heard him and Mr Wong, I allowed it at the taxation hearing. 

76.  As he did in taxation, Mr Wong disputed at review not the rate of copying involved but the necessity of such claim.  He told me from his experience that not all LCDs made similar claim by way of costs of taxation.  He stressed that 12 hours had already been allowed by parties’ agreement for Mr Yu to review files and documents and to prepare 6 taxation bundles. 

77.  I do not think this item has any duplication with the said 12 hours allowed.  This item is the costs of mechanical photocopying of another set of 6 taxation bundles for Mr Yu’s own use at taxation hearing.  While the practice of individual LCD differs, I agree with Mr Yu’s submissions of their necessity in the case before me.  This court did receive valuable assistance from him at taxation (and review hearing) for his having his own set of 6 taxation bundles. I find this sum of $1,305 fully justified and well spent. 

Disposition of Review

78.  In summary, I make the following orders on the Review Summons, namely:

(1)     I give leave to PP to withdraw her review on items Nos. 13(a), 19(a), 20, 21(a) & (b), 23, 26, 28, 53, 62, 70, 71, 95, 96 in Section A and items Nos 2, 9 & 9a in Section C of the Bill;

(2)     I allow PP’s review on items Nos. 6, 8, 80, 93.3, 93.4 and 94 in Section A, item 3 in Section B1, and item 5 in Section B2 of the Bill, and vary my assessments on them to the extents indicated above; and

(3)     I dismiss PP’s review on the remaining taxed items of the Bill set out in the Review Summons. 

Costs of the Review

79.  In view of orders I made after review, I consider RP the overall successful party but, in recognition of PP’s limited success on a few taxed items, I make an order nisi that PP pays RP 4/5 of the costs of and incidental to the Review Summons, including costs of the review hearing before me, whose total amount I summarily assess by way of another order nisi at $6,488^[6].  Such costs of review shall be added to the costs of taxation at Section C of the Bill.  The said 2 costs order nisi shall become absolute if none applies to vary them within 14 days.  

80.  Finally, I thank Mr Wong and Mr Yu for their assistance.