張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

HCA 1661, 1766, 2191/2014 &
HCA 623, 939, 1564/2015 (Consolidated)
and HCA 1282/2017
(Heard together)

[2022] HKCFI 326

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NOS 1661, 1766 & 2191 OF 2014 AND 623, 939 & 1564 OF 2015

________________________

________________________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of
The Honourable Mr Justice G Lam dated 20 August 2015)

AND

CA 1282/2017

ACTION NO 1282 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

(Heard together)

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.  I refer to the Former Receivers Lien Decision handed down on 23 June 2021.  In §70 thereof, I made a costs order nisi that the SHPs shall have their costs of the applications, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for 2 counsel (the “Order Nisi”).  Subsequently, and by consent, I varied the Order Nisi and ordered that the costs be summarily assessed.  I also gave directions on the filing of statement of costs, objections and reply.

2.  On 20 September 2021, Messrs Stephenson Harwood (“SH”)  filed on behalf of the SHPs their Statement of Costs.  They claim costs in the total sum of HK$1,048,882, the break-down of which appears as follows:

(a)  in Part B for “Manual Work” the total sum of HK$3,232;

(b)  in Part C for “Communications Including Conferences, Telephone Calls and Letters” the total sum of HK$123,400;

(c)  in Part D for “Professional Work” the total sum of HK$243,250; and

(d)  in Part E for “Counsel Fees” the total sum of 679,000 for 3 counsel.

3.  On 12 October 2021, the Former Receivers filed their Statement of Objections.  Part C is suggested to be excessive.  In relation to Part D, it is submitted that it is unreasonable for a total of 5 fee earners to have been involved, and the time is excessive in any event.  In relation to Part E, it is submitted that counsel’s fees are excessive, and that the costs of the 3^rd counsel should be disallowed in any event given the fact that certificate for only 2 counsel has been granted.  Deductions in the total sum of HK$615,745 are claimed.

4.  In their Reply of 26 October 2021, SH agree to some of the objections. In respect of others, even the objections are not entirely accepted, adjustments are made.  The total suggested costs are reduced to HK$830,125 (a deduction of HK$218,757 off the original amount claimed).

5.  I have considered that Statement of Costs, the Statement of Objections and the Reply (and in particular the concessions made therein).  Despite the complicated factual background and procedural history of the matter, and the law involved, and despite the concessions, I remain of the view that:

(a)  the total sum of HK$182,800 under Part D remains on the high side. There has been duplication of work.  In particular, I see little justification for the attendance of 3 fee earners during the hearing;

(b)  the counsel fees in the total sum of HK$550,000 remains on the high side, despite my grant of certificate for 2 counsel.  I assess them down to HK$300,000 and HK$120,000 for leading and junior counsel respectively.

6.  Applying a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the total fee at HK$680,000.

7.  I make no further order on costs in respect of this assessment.