WILLWIN DEVELOPMENT(ASIA) CO LTD v. WEI XING AND OTHERS

HCA 797/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 797 OF 2012

________________________

BETWEEN

_______________________

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

DECISION ON ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

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

1.  On 25 February 2013, I granted a costs order nisi that the plaintiff be entitled to 80% of the costs of and occasioned by the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants’ summons dated 30 November 2012 (including all costs reserved, if any) to be summarily assessed and paid forthwith.  The summons was heard by me on 7 February 2013 (“Hearing”).

2.  Since the above costs are to be assessed on party and party basis, only costs that are necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the taxing party’s rights will be allowed (see Order 62 rule 28(2) of the Rules of the High Court).

3.  As the plaintiff is to obtain 80% of their total costs in respect of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants’ summons, I shall assess such costs on a gross basis and then make the appropriate reduction at the end.

4.  General information  AL was admitted in 1988, but given the nature of the application there is no justification for an hourly rate of HK$4,500.00. I consider his appropriate hourly rate should be HK$4,000.00.  As for SN, her hourly rate should be HK$1,300.00.

5.  Item B1  The plaintiff asks for 2.5 hours of AN’s time and 1 hour of SN’s time for attendance on client. The 2^nd and 3^rd defendants say that no specific instructions from the client would be required to oppose their summons.  In my view, time had to be spent to inform the plaintiff of the summons and to confirm instructions to oppose the same after rendering legal advice.  However, I agree that detailed lay instructions would not be required.  In the circumstances, I allow 1 hour’s time on gross basis for AN at HK$4,000.00.

6.  Item B2  The plaintiff asks for 0.5 hour of AN’s time for attendance on the other side.  I agree that for the subject application, the majority of attendances would be routine in nature, so I allow on gross basis 10 minutes for AN and 20 minutes for SN at HK$1,100.00.

7.  Item B3  The plaintiff asks for 2 hours of AN’s time and 0.5 hour of SN’s time.  The 2nd and 3rd defendants claim it is excessive. But it must remembered that the 2nd and 3rd defendants have issued a whole host of requests for further and better particulars, and counsel needs to be properly instructed.  I do not agree that instructing counsel can be delegated merely to SN, but I agree that it is unnecessary for AN to spend 2 hours.  I consider that 1 hour for AN would be appropriate in this case on gross basis, ie HK$4,000.00.

8.  Item C1  This relates to the preparation of the plaintiff’s bundle of documents. The 2nd and 3rd defendants say the bundle is irrelevant and should be disallowed. First, they have not sought to vary the costs order nisi for such costs to be disallowed. Secondly, the information from the documents in the plaintiff’s bundle of documents has actually been deployed at the Hearing and in my Decision. But I agree it is unnecessary for AN to spend 1 hour and SN to spend 2 hours for this purpose. I consider that AN should be allowed 15 minutes and SN 0.5 hours to collate the bundle on gross basis at HK$1,650.00.

9.  Item C2  For perusal of documents, the plaintiff asks for 1 hour’s time for AN. The 2nd and 3rd defendants suggest that since SN attended the Hearing, it should at SN’s rate. I disagree for such argument ignores the need for the solicitor in charge to understand and consider the application and to give advice and liaise with counsel on the same.  I allow AN’s time of 0.5 hours under this item on gross basis at HK$2,000.00.

10.  Item C3  I allow 0.5 hour at HK$650.00 on gross basis for SN to prepare for the Hearing.

11.  Item C4  The time spent for the Hearing was from 10:03am to 11:28am, so I allow 1.5 hours’ time for SN at HK$1,950.00 on gross basis.

12.  Item D1  There is no dispute over counsel’s fee of HK$22,000.00 on gross basis.

13.  Item D2  The plaintiff seeks photocopy charges for the plaintiff’s hearing bundle. In view of my ruling on Item C1, this item should be allowed at HK$810.00 on gross basis.

14.  The total costs of the plaintiff on their revised statement of costs on gross basis are assessed at HK$38,160.00 (being HK$4,000.00 (B1) + HK$1,100.00 (B2) + HK$4,000.00 (B3) + HK$1,650.00 (C1) + HK$2,000.00 (C2) + HK$650.00 (C3) + HK$1,950.00 (C4) + HK$22,000.00 (D1) + HK$810.00 (D2)).

15.  After reduction by 80% in respect of the aforesaid costs, the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants shall forthwith pay net costs in the sum of HK$30,528.00 to the plaintiff.