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 FIRST INSTANCE

CIVIL APPEAL NO 113 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 362 OF 2014)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.This is the plaintiff's application for review of my taxation decisions in respect of 3 item, namely nos 15, 16 and 22 of the defendant's bill of costs filed 17 June 2016, which were taxed on party and party basis pursuant to the order of the Court of Appeal dated 29 January 2016. The taxation hearing was held before me on 22 February 2017 (“hearing”).

2.The basic principles of taxation on party and party basis are laid down in 62/App/6 of the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2017 Vol 1, which states, inter alia, that the costs chargeable on this basis are all that necessary and proper to enable the adverse party to conduct the litigation, and no more.  Any charges merely for conducting litigation more conveniently may be called luxuries and must be paid by the party incurring them. 

Item no 15

3.The defendant claimed 30 minutes for considering the respondent’s skeleton submission dated 22 January 2016 by Mr Edmund Chong (“EC”) whilst the plaintiff suggested allowing 20 minutes of EC in her list of objection filed 15 July 2016.  I ruled no deduction for this item at the hearing.

4.The plaintiff now contended in her application for review that there were more than 8 pages duplicated to the defendant’s skeleton in HCA 362/2014 or quoting the judgment.  She suggested allowing only 9 minutes based on 3 minutes in considering a page.

5.To start with, the plaintiff simply failed to explain why she suggested allowing 20 minutes of EC in her list of objection in the first place but now changed her suggestion to 9 minutes in this review bearing in mind that her list of objection was well prepared in July 2016 and she had not requested to revise her suggestion downward at the hearing.  Similarly, no explanation given by her as to the item no 22 under this review for revising her suggestion downward. Furthermore, in my view, there is no legal basis for her to suggest an arithmetical formula for taxation, like allowing certain minutes in considering a page as the complexity of a legal document may vary from page to page or even paragraph to paragraph.  The court has to look at the specific document or a particular legal work as a whole for the purpose of taxation and assessing the quantum.

6.In any event, I disagree with her contention as the Respondent’s skeleton submission was prepared by counsel, Mr Anthony Chan containing 11 pages, which I consider it a quite complicated legal submission.  After my further revision of this document, 30 minutes for considering the same is appropriate.  In my view, the plaintiff’s suggestion of 9 minutes in her review is entirely unreasonable and her review for this item must be rejected.

Item no.16

7.The defendant claimed 3 hours 30 minutes for considering the Respondent’s list of authorities dated 22 January 2016 by EC whilst the plaintiff suggested allowing 30 minutes of EC in her list of objection filed 15 July 2016.  I ruled to minus 140 minutes at the hearing or in other words, allowed 70 minutes.

8.The plaintiff submitted in her application for review that the Respondent’s list of authorities consisted of the decided cases, extract from ordinance and some from textbook. She suggested allowing 56 minutes based on 10 minutes in considering a case and 3 minutes in considering a page.

9.The Respondent’s list of authorities was prepared by counsel, Mr Anthony Chan containing 14 items of authorities.  After my further revision of these authorities and based on the similar reasons given above, I maintain that 70 minutes shall be allowed for EC in considering the same.  The review for this item be refused.

Item no.22

10.The defendant claimed 1 hour for considering the written reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 2 March 2016 by EC whilst the plaintiff suggested allowing 40 minutes of EC in her list of objection.  I ruled to minus 15 minutes at the hearing or in other words, allowed 45 minutes.

11.The plaintiff contended that some pages of the written judgment are summary of the plaintiff’s case and some quoted from the judgment below in HCA 362/2014.  She therefore suggested allowing 18 minutes.

12.The written reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal consists of 22 pages, which has quite a lot of legal discussions.  I have already taken into account of the plaintiff’s submission at the hearing.  In my view, based on the similar reasons given above, allowing 45 minutes for EC to consider the same is reasonable and proper in the circumstances.  Hence, the review for this item be refused.

Conclusion

13.To conclude, I order that the plaintiff’s application for review be dismissed.  As costs shall follow events, I further order her to pay costs of this application to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed, on a nisi basis which shall become absolute unless any of the parties make application by summons to vary it.

The plaintiff unrepresented appearing in person

Mr D Au, Law Costs Draftsman, instructed by Li & Partners, for the defendant