Global Medical Solutions Hong Kong Ltd v. Ma Man Lung

HCA1560/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1560 OF 2011

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

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

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

DECISION

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

1.This court handed down the Decision dated 19 May 2016 (“the Previous Decision”) whereby Mr Ma’s appeal from the dismissal of his application for an extension of time to review taxation by a master was refused. In this Decision, this court shall refer to the Previous Decision for the background facts and shall adopt the same abbreviations in addition to those newly defined.

2.Arising from the Previous Decision, each of the parties makes an application. First, GMS applies by its summons dated 31 May 2016 for a variation of the costs order nisi such that costs of the appeal should be assessed summarily on an indemnity basis to be paid by Mr Ma to GMS.

3.On the other hand, Mr Ma took out a summons dated 1 June 2016 for his application for leave to appeal. His summons is supported by his affirmation dated 23 August 2016.

4.I shall first deal with Mr Ma’s application for leave to appeal. I have read his supporting affirmation and heard him at the hearing. Mr Ma merely rehashed his arguments advanced at the last hearing and this court has dealt with all of them in the Previous Decision. Essentially Mr Ma complains about his ignorance of the exact amount of costs taxed until he received the Allocatur and that there was a minor difference between the amount stated in the Letter and that stated in the Allocatur.

5.I do not find it necessary to deal with the same again in this Decision. Suffice it to say I do not believe his intended appeal has any reasonable prospect of success and Mr Ma does not begin to explain in what respect this court has erred in the Previous Decision. Nor does he argue that the exercise of my discretion was plainly wrong or really perverse. Mr Ma has failed to satisfy the threshold in section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, Cap.4.. Mr Ma’s application must be refused with costs to GMS.

6.Now I turn to the application of GMS. It asks for indemnity costs pursuant to O.62 rr.5 and 9A, Rules of the High Court.

7.As explained in the Previous Decision, this court finds Mr Ma’s appeal to be totally devoid of merit and should not have been prosecuted at all. It was an abuse of the court processes. On this basis, this court is satisfied that it is an appropriate case of indemnity costs to be awarded against Mr Ma. I therefore accede to the application of GMS and grant GMS its costs of the Appeal and of this application on an indemnity basis.

8.I have two statements of costs submitted by GMS. One is dated 15 June 2016 for the hearing on 26 February 2016 (“the 1^st Statement”) and the other one is dated 29 August 2016 for the hearing on 30 August 2016 (“the 2^nd Statement”). Mr Ma has been given an opportunity to put in his written objections. I am prepared to summarily assess GMS its costs payable by Mr Ma with a view to saving costs. 

9.By the 1^st Statement, GMS seeks costs in the sum of HK$50,562.10. I do not think it is a reasonable figure even given the voluminous amount of documents filed by Mr Ma. It is plain and obvious that Mr Ma’s appeal was hopeless and the legal representatives of GMS should not be expected to spend so many professional hours on this matter. Taking a broadbrush approach, I allow indemnity costs of HK$20,000 to be paid by Mr Ma to GMS in respect of its costs of the Appeal.

10.By the 2^nd Statement, GMS seeks costs in the sum of HK$25,026. By the same token, this court can only allow indemnity costs of HK$12,000 to be paid by Mr Ma to GMS in respect of its costs of both its summons and Mr Ma’s application for leave to appeal.

Mr M Birks, of Angela Wang & Co., for the plaintiff

The defendant appeared in person