CACV49/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2014
(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 378 OF 2010)
________________________
BETWEEN
JOTRON AS (formerly known as JOTRON ELECTRONICS AS)
Plaintiff
and
STANLEY CHANG trading as HONG KONG INSTECH TRADING CO.
Defendant
________________________
Before: Hon Chu JA in Chambers
Date of Decision: 10 November 2014
__________________________________
DECISION ON
__________________________________
1. On 25 June 2014, upon the plaintiff’s application, I ordered the defendant to pay into court by 25 August 2014 the sum of $300,000 as security for the plaintiff’s costs in the appeal. The appeal was stayed pending compliance with the order.
2. The defendant applied for legal aid. As a result of the notice of the legal aid application filed by the Director of Legal Aid, there was a stay of the appeal proceedings for 42 days under section 15(4) of the Legal Aid Ordinance, Cap. 91. The time for the defendant to provide the security for costs was consequently extended to 6 October 2014. By notice dated 13 October 2014, the Director of Legal Aid gave notice indicating that the defendant’s legal aid application had been refused on 9 October 2014.
3. The defendant has not paid into the court the security for costs as ordered. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of the order, the appeal shall stand dismissed with costs to the plaintiff upon the failure to provide security for costs as ordered.
4. By its solicitors’ letter dated 22 October 2014, the plaintiff asked for its costs of the appeal to be summarily assessed, and further provided a statement of costs in the amount of $92,481.60.
5. By another letter of the same date, the plaintiff’s solicitors informed the defendant that it shall proceed to seek summary assessment of its costs in the appeal on paper and the defendant was invited to indicate any objection or comment he had on the summary assessment application and the quantum of the plaintiff’s statement of costs.
6. The defendant has not responded to the plaintiff’s letter. Nor has he written to the court to raise objection to summary assessment of the plaintiff’s costs or the amount of the costs sought by the plaintiff.
7. In the interest of saving costs and time, I accept it is appropriate to summarily assess the plaintiff’s costs on paper without hearing.
8. As to the quantum of the plaintiff’s costs, I make three general observations. First, the plaintiff had already been awarded its costs of the security for costs. Hence it is only the costs of the rest of the appeal proceedings that this assessment is concerned with. Second, there has not been much progress in the appeal proceedings thus far. The notice of appeal was served on 10 March 2014. This was followed by an application to set down the appeal. Thereafter, pursuant to the directions of the Registrar for civil appeal, the defendant had served an index to the appeal bundle, to which the plaintiff’s solicitors had provided written comments. The appeal has since not proceeded further. Third, the costs will be assessed on party-and-party basis such that only costs that are necessary and reasonable will be allowed. Also, only one fee-earner will be allowed for each piece of work. Fourth, given the little documentation involved so far, the time claimed for perusal and preparation of documents, especially that of AYL is excessive.
9. Bearing in mind the above, I consider the following items in the plaintiff’s statement of costs should be reduced:
10. The plaintiff’s costs of the appeal is therefore assessed at $54,999.60.
(C Chu)
Justice of Appeal
Boase, Cohen & Collins for the plaintiff (respondent).
The defendant (appellant), unrepresented.