AU WAI YIN AMY AND ANOTHER v. POON CHUNG KWONG PETER AND OTHERS

CACV 453/2020

[2020] HKCA 1041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 453 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP 152/2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court):

1.  After we allowed the appeal on 3 November 2020, we directed for statement of costs and list of objections to be lodged.

2.  Solicitors for the petitioners lodged 4 statements of costs:

(a)  For CACV 453/2020, seeking a total sum of $98,274;

(b)  For CAMP 68/2020, seeking a total sum of $55,300;

(c)  For the leave application in HCMP 152/2019, seeking a total sum of $124,700; and

(d)  For the petition in HCMP 152/2019, seeking a total sum of $417,545.

3.  Solicitors for the 1^st Respondent lodged 2 lists of objections, one dealing with the costs in CACV 453/2020 whilst the other one deals with the other proceedings:

(a)  For CACV 453/2020, the total sum proposed by the 1^st Respondent is $62,674;

(b) For CAMP 68/2020, the total sum proposed by the 1^st Respondent is $33,200;

(c)  For the leave application in HCMP 152/2019, the total sum proposed by the 1^st Respondent is $84,200; and

(d) For the petition in HCMP 152/2019, the total sum proposed by the 1^st Respondent is $207,745.

4.  We shall only give summary assessments for the costs in CACV 453/2020 and CAMP 68/2020 which were proceedings before us.  As for the costs in HCMP 152/2019, as the petition was not interlocutory proceedings, Order 62 Rule 9A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) is not applicable.  Though similar power can be exercised under Rule 9(4)(b), we are not minded to exercise that power in the present case.  Instead, we would order those costs in HCMP 152/2019 (including the costs for the leave application) be taxed if not agreed.

5.  For CACV 453/2020, we do not accept that the time spent and the rates charged by the solicitor on the various items in the statement of costs was excessive.  We fix the costs of the petitioners at $98,274.

6.  For CAMP 68/2020, bearing in mind that similar application had already been made in the court below, there is scope of reducing the costs to be allowed to avoid duplication for the costs in the leave application for HCMP 152/2019.  We would fix the costs of the petitioners at $45,000.