梅啟明 AND ANOTHER v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD

HCA 1184/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1184 OF 2011

____________

BETWEEN

_____________________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_____________________________________________

1.  On 13 December 2011, I struck out the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim and ordered the plaintiffs to pay for the defendant’s costs of this action, including the costs of the striking-out application, on an indemnity basis.  This is the summary assessment of such costs.

2.  I refer to the defendant’s Statement of Costs dated 16 January 2012. 

3.  I allow the photocopying charges in full. 

4.  This is a rather simple application.  In my view, the handling solicitors did not need to obtain a lot of instructions from lay client to prepare the application.  Even taking into account that the costs should be taxed on an indemnity basis, I am of the view that the time spent on communication under Item C was very much excessive.  I reduce the amount by 50% and only allow a sum of $33,631.

5.  For Item D1, I allow the fee of Mr Gilchrist in full ($3,125).  For the fee of Mr So, the time spent was excessive, in particular counsel was involved in the argument of the application.  I allow 7 hours of his work in the sum of $25,760.

6.  Even taking into account that the costs are to be taxed on an indemnity basis, the time spent on the perusal of documents under Item D2 was excessive.  I allow 1 hour for the work of Mr Gilchrist in the sum of $6,250 and 3.5 hours for Mr So in the sum of $12,880. 

7.  Even taking into account that the costs are to be taxed on an indemnity basis, the time spent on the preparation for the hearing was also excessive.   In particular, the hearing on 13 December 2011 was attended by counsel.  I allow the 1 hour for the hearing on 7 September 2011 and 1.5 hours for hearing on 13 December 2011.  The total sum allowed under Item D3 is $9,200.

8.  For the attendance of hearing under Item D4, I allow the sum claimed for the hearing on 7 September 2011 in full.  For the hearing on 13 December 2011, since the hearing was attended by counsel, I do not think that it was necessary and reasonable to have 2 solicitors attending the hearing.  Since the preparation work was mainly done by Mr So, I only allow the attendance of Mr So in the sum of $7,360.

9.  Although the application was not a complicated one, taking into account that there were still some issues of law involved in the application, I would not say that the engagement of counsel was unreasonable. For the drafting work, I allow the fee claimed in full.  For Item E2, this is not a kind of application which should involve a lot of time in the taking of instructions from lay client or solicitor.  I allow 1 hour in the sum of $4,000.  For Item E3, I think that the counsel fee is on the high side taking into account that the application was not a particular difficult one.  However, since the costs are taxed on an indemnity basis, I cannot say that the fee charged is unreasonable and so I allow the brief fee in full.

10.  Based on the aforesaid, the defendant’s taxed costs can be listed out as follows:

B1	Photocopying charges	$2,291
C	Communications	$33,631
D1	Preparation of documents	$28,885
D2	Perusal of documents	$19,130
D3	Preparation for hearing	$9,200
D4	Attendance of hearing	$8,280
E	Counsel fee	$76,000
	Total:	$177,417