HUI KEE CHUN v. THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONAL DATA

HCA 1980/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1980 OF 2006

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

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

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

Reasons for Decision on the Review

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

INTRODUCTION

1. The Plaintiff, Mr. Hui, in this review of taxation is the paying party (“the PP”), and the Defendant, the receiving party (“the RP”).  The RP was awarded costs as a result of its success in striking out the PP’s Statement of Claim both before the Master, and before Deputy Judge Louis Chan on appeal by the PP against the Master’s decision. The full background of this claim can be found in the judgment of the learned Deputy Judge handed  down on 30^th November 2007, and I will not repeat here. The PP’s grounds of Review are in the 6^th Affidavit of Hui Kee Chun filed on 8 August 2008.

2. In the grounds of objections, the PP applied to review both items that previously raised no objections at the taxation hearing as well as items that I had taxed and ruled upon.

3. Regarding items that had not previously been objected to, the RP took a preliminary point on lack of jurisdiction.

4. For convenience, I will firstly dispose of this type of objections as it concerns with a jurisdictional matter.

PRELIMINARY ARGUMENT: ITEMS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY OBJECTED TO

5. The items that fall within this category are, according to the order of the PP’s list are Item Nos. 19-21, 35, 86, 186(b), 187, 196 and 19-21.

6. The gist of PP’s arguments is that under Order 62 rule 33(1) of the Rules of the High Court a taxing master’s power to review is not restricted only to items that have been taxed, but he is completely free to look at all items afresh, whether they have been taxed or not.

7. The RP simply contends that absence a taxing master’s previous adjudication on costs claimed in a bill of costs, or any objections raised by a party liable for payment of costs, there is nothing for a taxing master to review or reconsider under Order 62 rule 33.

Decision

8. The provisions in Order 62 rule 33, in my view, enable a party dissatisfied with a ruling or decision made by a taxing master to review his or her decision.

9. A party’s costs are required to be taxed only when the costs claimed by a party entitled to costs are being disputed.  Hence, when a party liable for costs does not dispute any items in a bill of costs, the taxation process is simply not engaged.  In the instant proceedings, the PP was given adequate opportunity to raise objections to any items he disputed, and he had indeed fully utilized such an opportunity to raise objections by filing a detailed list of objections to the Bill.

10. I think the instant review is different to a situation where a party has, through inadvertence has omitted to include in a list of objections to some items in a bill.  Such kind of omission could easily be remedied by the party asking for leave to raise objections during the taxation proceedings.  In this Review, the PP is asking me to review on items which he had not   objected either in writing or otherwise at the taxation hearing, and more particularly, I had not previously taxed any of those items mentioned in paragraph 5 above.

11. For these reasons, I am clearly of the view that items that I have not previously taxed do not fall within the ambit of Order 62 rule 33, and I accordingly dismiss the application for review in respect of these items.

Decision on items that were taxed

12. I set out below by way of a table the reasons for decision in respect of each items of objections in accordance with the order set out in the PP’s list of objections (and the items covered by the preliminary arguments are in bold type for clarity).

COSTS

13. The net result shows that PP has substantially failed in the Review.  Hence, I ordered PP to pay the costs of the Review, including costs reserved, and assessed the costs at $8,000.