|
HCA 2092/2024
[2025] HKCFI 4356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 2092 OF 2024
__________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
|
LAM PO YEE |
Plaintiff |
|
AND |
|
|
YU SHUI MUI ( 余水梅) |
Defendant |
__________________
| Before: |
Hon K Yeung J in Chambers |
| Dates of Statements of Costs and Reply by the Defendant: |
7 April, 28 July and 27 August 2025 |
| Date of Statements of Objections
by the Plaintiff: |
20 August 2025 |
| Date of Decision on Costs: |
22 September 2025 |
__________________________
DECISION
ON
COSTS
__________________________
1. I refer to my Decision handed down on 14 July 2025. I refer to the costs order nisi I made at §51, that P shall bear the costs of and occasioned by the SC Summons, both here and below, with certificate for counsel, to be summarily assessed.
2. I have considered D’s 2 Statements of Costs, one of 7 April 2025 regarding the substantive hearing before Master Hew on 8 April 2025 (“Statement of Costs/Hearing”), and the other of 28 July 2025 regarding the appeal (“Statement of Costs/Appeal”), P’s 2 Statements of Objections both of 20 August 2025, and D’s Reply of 27 August 2025.
Statement of Costs/Hearing
3. For A4 (Fee Earners’ Rate), I am of the view that the involvement of an experienced partner in the conduct of D’s case is reasonable. I do not accept P’s suggestion that only a solicitor with 2 years PQE needed to be involved. An experienced principal was indeed involved in the conduct of P’s case.
4. For B (Manual Work), the total claimed amount of HK$4,026 is reasonable.
5. For C (Communications etc), I am of the view that the total number of hours of 6.5 hours in the total amount of HK$23,300 are excessive. I allow only HK$12,000.
6. For D1 and D2 (Professional Work – Preparation and Perusal of Documents), I am of the view that the total number of hours of 7 hours in the total amount of HK$29,400 are excessive. This is particularly so when counsel was engaged to settle documents. I allow only HK$15,000.
7. For E (Counsel), engagement of counsel for the 3-minute hearing on 7 February 2025 is in my view unreasonable. I reduce E1(1) by HK$10,000.
8. Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$110,000.
Statement of Costs/Appeal
9. For A4 (Fee Earners’ Rate), I am of the view that the involvement of an experienced partner, a solicitor admitted in 2024 and a legal executive are reasonable.
10. Manual Work under B is agreed.
11. In respect of C (Communications etc), I refer to section E of my Decision on “Events after the substantive hearing of the SC Summons”. Given the occurrence of those matters set out therein, I am of the view that the total number of time (12 hours) and costs (HK$42,400) are reasonable.
12. For D1 and D2 (Professional Work – Preparation and Perusal of Documents), despite the occurrence of those matters set out in section E of my Decision, I am of the view that the total number of hours of 6 hours in the total amount of HK$18,800 are excessive. I allow only HK$10,000.
13. For E (Counsel), I am of the view that Mr Siu’s brief of HK$80,000 is reasonable.
14. Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$151,000.
| |
(Keith Yeung)
|
| |
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
| |
High Court |
Statements of Objections by LIMS Solicitors, for the Plaintiff
Statements of Costs and Reply by Tung, Ng, Tse & Lam, for the Defendant
|