Wong Chi Ching v. Bocom International Holdings Co Ltd

CACV 113/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 113 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO 362 of 2014)

________________________

BETWEEN

_______________________

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.We dismissed this appeal at the hearing on 29 January 2016 and gave our reasons for doing so on 2 March 2016.

2.On 30 March 2016, solicitors for the Plaintiff issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.On 6 April 2016, the Plaintiff filed a Notice to Act in Person.

4.On 13 April 2016, the court gave directions for the disposal of the Motion on paper.  Pursuant to such directions, the Plaintiff was to file and serve submissions in support of the application by 27 April 2016 and the Defendant were to respond by 4 May 2016.

5.On 26 April 2016, the Plaintiff issued an application to withdraw her application for leave.  However, she sought to withdraw the application on the basis that there would be no order as to costs.

6.By a letter of 27 April 2016, solicitors for the Defendant indicated that the Defendant sought costs of the Motion in the sum of $9,800.  A breakdown of such costs was attached to that letter.

7.Parties wrote further to the court on the quantum of costs.  The Plaintiff said she wrote to the solicitors for the Defendant (on a without prejudice save as to costs basis) on 19 April 2016 proposing that she would settle by withdrawing her application with no order as to costs.  And she asked the Defendant to respond within 3 days.  In a letter of 5 May 2016, she also submitted that the costs charged by solicitors for the Defendant were excessive and she said reasonable costs should be $2,900.

8.Solicitors for the Defendant set out their reasons for disagreement with the Plaintiff in a letter of 5 May 2016.  There were subsequent correspondence, which we have read: Plaintiff’s letters of 9 and 17 May 2016 and letter of Defendant’s solicitor of 13 May 2016.

9.In light of the Plaintiff’s non-compliance with the direction to file submissions in support of the application and her indication that she did not wish to pursue the application, we shall dismiss the Notice of Motion.

10.On the question of costs of the Motion, we agree with solicitors for the Defendant that the Defendant should have the costs of the Motion.  There is no reason why the Plaintiff should not have to bear the costs consequence of her Motion and her letter of 19 April 2016 could not assist her. 

11.On the quantum of costs, having considered the breakdown provided by the solicitors and the parties’ arguments, we agree that it is not justified to charge for 2 solicitors in respect of the works done at this stage (bearing in mind the nature of work in question).  We therefore allow the costs of the senior solicitor only whose time engaged in the matter as per the breakdown should be sufficient to deal with the task at hand.  We shall fix the costs by way of gross sum assessment at $7,200. 

12.We order accordingly.

The plaintiff acting in person

Li & Partners, for the defendant