Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 58/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2016

(ON APPEAL FROM HCCW NO. 337 OF 2015)

________________________

	IN THE MATTER OF the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap 32)
	and
	IN THE MATTER OF Allied Weli Development Limited (formerly known as Hennabun Capital Group Limited)

________________________

BETWEEN

	Penta Investment Advisers Limited	Petitioner
	and
	Allied Weli Development Limited (formerly known as Hennabun Capital Group Limited)	Respondent

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Kwan and McWalters JJA in Court

Date of Petitioner’s Statement of Costs : 24 July 2017

Date of Respondent’s List of Objections to the Petitioner’s Statement of Costs : 31 July 2017

Date of Petitioner’s Response to the Respondent’s List of Objections : 10 August 2017

Date of Summary Assessment of Costs : 28 August 2017

_________________________________

Summary Assessment of Costs

_________________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Summary Assessment of Costs of the Court) :

1.Pursuant to the direction given in our judgment dated 18 July 2017, Lam & Co informed the Court the name of the funder and also that the funder is prepared to pay for the costs of the appeal. The parties agreed to have the issue of costs to be dealt with on paper which we now do. In view of the funder’s concession the only outstanding issue is the summary assessment of costs.

2.The petitioner asks for $776,796 of which solicitors’ costs are $456,796 (which included $211,031 for communication including conferences, telephone calls and letters and $225,390 for professional work) and counsel’s fee of $320,000.

3.Three solicitors and one litigation clerk were engaged. In respect of time spent on communication, 10.4 hours for attendance on client, 7.2 hours for attendance on other side, 5.8 hours for attendance on counsel, 1.5 hours for attendance on liquidators and 3.3 hours for attendance on court.

4.In respect of professional work, among other things,

1) 16.2 hours for preparation of documents by two solicitors and a litigation clerk (including matters relating to security for costs and inclusion of transcript in appeal bundle).

2) 7 hours for perusal of documents by two solicitors and a litigation clerk.

5.We ordered indemnity costs to be given to the petitioner. The principles on indemnity costs are found in Re Wing Fai Construction Co. Ltd (Costs : Taxation) [2012] 15 HKCFAR 657 at [21] to [26]. As Chan PJ emphasised, indemnity costs do not mean giving a blank cheque to the receiving party to recover all his costs without proper scrutiny by the Court. The Court is still required to exclude items which have been unreasonably incurred or any particular amount which is unreasonable. What is unreasonable in any given case must be guided by the Court’s view on the complexity of the case, particularly where the Court had heard the matter and will perform the task of summary assessment itself.

6.In this case, guideline for the winding up of foreign companies has been well established by the Court of Final Appeal in the Yung Kee Case. This is not a complex case at all. It was listed as a three hour appeal. In our view the reasonable amount for solicitors’ work is $250,000 and for counsel is also $250,000.

7.Accordingly the petitioner’s costs are assessed at $500,000.