CHEN HONGQING v. ASIA CEMENT CORPORATION

HCA 1304/2017

[2022] HKCFI 3106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1304 OF 2017

______________

______________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

1.  By my Decision of 16 March 2021, I amongst other matters dismissed the Joinder and Injunction Summons taken out by Chen HQ in HCA 1304. By my Decision of 23 September 2021[1], I dismissed further Chen HQ’s application by Summons of 30 March 2021 (the “LOA Summons”) for leave to appeal against that Decision. Subsequently, Chen HQ applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal. In the light of that, I directed that the assessment of costs in relation to the LOA Summons be deferred until final disposition of Chen HQ’s application (or appeal should leave be granted) before the Court of Appeal.

2.  By Judgment handed down on 22 July 2022, the Court of Appeal refused Chen HQ’s application for leave to appeal and dismissed his application.

3.  Subsequent to the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of Chen HQ’s application for leave to appeal, and upon my directions, parties have filed their respective Statements of Costs, Lists of Objections, and Replies before this Court for summary assessment of the costs of the LOA Summons.

ACC’s Statement of Costs

4.  ACC’s claim totals HK$289,920.  The total number of man-hours claimed for the 2 fee earners (“SSTM” and “SKW” admitted in 2003 and 2018 respectively) is 38.1 (SSTM x 14.4 and SKW x 23.7).  The total amount of counsel fees is HK130,000.

5.  Chen HQ disputes only the amount of work claimed to have been undertaken by the 2 fee earners.  Counsel fees are agreed.

6.  Having considered the objections, ACC in its reply reduces the total amount of costs claimed to HK$271,200.

7.  Given the background and intricacies of the matters, and adopting a broad brush approach, I am of the view that the adjusted sum is necessary, proper and reasonable. 

8.  I summarily assess ACC’s costs of and occasioned by the LOA Summons at HK$271,200.

The 962Ds’ Statement of Costs

9.  The 962D’s claim totals HK$266,060.  The total number of man-hours claimed for the 4 fee earners (“IN”, “EL”, “GL” and “TS”, the first 3 admitted in 1992, 2012 and 2018 respectively, and TS being a trainee solicitor) is 30 (IN x 1.5, EL x 10, GL x 16.5 and TS x 2). The total amount of counsel fees is HK$155,000 (HK$80,000 for Senior Counsel, and HK$75,000 for Junior Counsel called in 2017).

10.  Chen HQ disputes the amount of work claimed to have been undertaken by the 4 fee earners.  Senior Counsel’s fee is agreed. The fee of Junior Counsel is suggested to be reduced to HK$45,000

11.  Having considered the objections, the 962Ds in reply make some concession in respect of the fees of the 4 fee earners.  They maintain that the fee of the Junior Counsel, equivalent to 2.5 days of work, is reasonable.  The total amount of costs claimed is reduced to HK$248,110.

12.  I find that the fees charged by counsel are overall reasonable.  The fee claimed by Junior Counsel is in my view and in the circumstances of the present case within the range of reasonableness.

13.  Again, given the background and intricacies of the matters, and adopting a broad brush approach, I am of the view that the adjusted sum is necessary, proper and reasonable. 

14.  I summarily assess the 926Ds’ costs of and occasioned by the LOA Summons at HK$248,110.

Overall disposition

15.  I summarily assess ACC’s and 926Ds’ costs of and occasioned by the LOA Summons at HK$271,200 and HK$248,110 respectively.

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