Wong Man Hon Frederick v. China Times Securities Ltd

HCA 2715/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2715 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

________________________________________________

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

________________________________________________

1.This is a gross sum assessment of costs pursuant to my order dated 3 February 2017. The written Reasons for Judgment were handed down on 15 February 2017.

2.The defendant has submitted a Statement of Costs for Summary Assessment dated 8 February 2017.  ‌The plaintiff has submitted a List of Objections dated 13 February 2017 and I have had regard to both of these.

3.There were apparently two solicitors who acted on behalf of the defendant namely Satpal Gobindpuri, being a partner, and Cheng Ting Lun, being a consultant.  ‌The hourly rate claimed for each of them is $4,000 and there is no objection to this.

4.As a general objection the plaintiff says there can be no justification for allowing the claims of more than one fee earner. I do not think this proposition is of universal application but the court will look closely to see if the nature of the case is one that may justify the employment of more than one fee earner, particularly where the claim is, as here, for two senior practitioners.

5.Having considered the case, I do not regard it as especially complex nor is it document heavy.  On a party and party taxation, I do not think the plaintiff can expect to recover the costs of more than one fee earner.  ‌I have therefore deducted all the time claimed by Mr Gobindpuri.

6.The time for Mr Cheng is broken down into the usual categories of attendances on clients, counsel and his opponent and preparation and reading of documents and preparing for hearings.  In total 54 hours of work is claimed.  In deciding what is fair I have borne in mind that counsel was engaged at both the hearing before Deputy High Court Judge Sakhrani on 28 October 2016 and at the hearing before me on 3 February 2017, in the latter hearing there being both senior and junior counsel.  The plaintiff asserts the time spent is excessive and submits I should allow only 15 hours.

7.I have concluded the time claimed for the various attendances of 14 hours is reasonable but that a fair figure for the time spent on reading and preparation of documents and preparing for hearings is 16 hours.  When added to the time spent attending at hearings of 6.5 hours to which no objection is made by the plaintiff, this arrives at a figure for Mr. Cheng’s time of $146,000.

8.Challenge is also made to the brief fees paid to counsel.  The brief fee for junior counsel for the hearing on 28 October 2016 was $24,000 and for the hearing on 3 February 2017 $48,000.  The plaintiff says fair amounts would be $15,000 and $30,000 bearing in mind Mr Wong was only called to the Bar in 2014.  Notwithstanding his relatively recent year of call the amounts claimed for Mr Wong’s fees seem reasonable.

9.Challenge is also made to Mr Manzoni’s brief fee of $300,000 and it is suggested this should be taxed down to $150,000.  Given Mr Manzoni was briefed for the substantive hearing of the injunction and the fact this necessitated filing a skeleton argument as well as attendance on the substantive hearing, I have taken account of the likely preparation time needed.  I have concluded a brief fee of $225,000 is a fair one to recover on a party and party taxation.

10.With the addition of manual items where I accept the plaintiff’s objections this arrives at a total figure of $444,138 and that is the assessment I make of the costs the plaintiff must pay to the defendant pursuant to my order of 3 February 2017.

Written Submissions by Lam & Co, for the plaintiff

Written Submissions by DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the defendant