Szeto Yuk Lin v. Kanton Ltd and Others

HCMP 251/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 251 OF 2016

___________

___________

___________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Lee in Chambers

Date of Judgment:  27 December 2017

_______________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

ON COSTS

_______________________________

INTRODUCTION

1.Reference is made to the Ruling handed down on 1 December where this court refused the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal and ordered that she should pay the costs of the opposing defendants[1], with certificates of counsel (if applicable), for the leave application. The plaintiff is also ordered to pay for the defendants’ costs of the application for extension of time for her to comply with the Judgment of this court handed down on 6 October 2017 by virtue of which she was required to file and serve a Statement of Claim. The assessment of the two sets of costs was ordered to be done by way of summary assessment.[2]

2.At paragraph 48 of the Ruling, directions were given as to the filing of the Statements of Costs by the defendants concerned and the reply, if any, by the plaintiff.   This court has since received the Statements of Costs from D3, D5 and D6.  However, this court has not received any reply from the plaintiff and the time for her to file one expired on 18 December 2017.  In the circumstances, this court takes it that the plaintiff is not minded to make any reply.  There is no Statement of Costs from D2 who has acted in person.

3.Although as aforesaid there are two sets of costs involved, one for the leave application and the other for the application for extension of time, the latter only occupied very little court time and the application was heard orally and dealt with by consent at the hearing.  In the following, this court is going to adopt a very broad brush approach, which is appropriate for summary assessment, without condescending to make a separate assessment for each set of costs.

D3

4.D3 is acting in person.  However, he is a senior counsel by profession. He seeks a reimbursement of $738 for manual work and also a total of $52,000 for professional work including preparation of documents (5 hours), perusal of documents (5 hours); preparation for hearing (2 hours) and hearing (1 hour), all such professional work having been conducted during his norming working hours.  For the present purpose, he is content to charge an hourly rate (at $4,000) as if the work was done by a senior solicitor.  I find the proposed rate to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case, bearing in mind that D3 is acting in person.

5.By a broad brush approach, in view of the nature of the proceedings, the grounds raised by the plaintiff and also taking into account the extent and quality of legal research entailed in preparing D3’s written submission, I consider that a global amount of $40,000 to be reasonable for D3’s costs and I so order.

D5

6.D5 was presented by a firm of solicitors who claims $275 for manual work, $31 for travelling expenses and another $45,200 for attendance and professional work, making a total of $45,506.

7.There are two fee-earners involved: Mr Lui, a partner (admitted in1998) and Mr Wong, an assistant solicitor (admitted in 2010).  Mr Lui charges an hourly rate of $4,000 and Mr Wong $3,200.   I note that the bulk of the professional work was done by Mr Wong (10.5 hours), whereas Mr Lui spent very little time (1 hour) on case preparation.

8.In my view, the total time spent by Mr Wong is on the high side.  In this regard, I have taken into account, among other things, his written submission and the extent of legal research seemed to have been devoted in preparing it.  In my assessment, a global amount of $35,000 for D5’s costs would be reasonable and I so order.

D6

9.D6 was prepared by solicitors and counsel.  D6 claims a total of $99,800 comprising: $1,100 for manual work; $33,000 for communications (totaled 9.25 hours); $39,000 for professional work (totaled 9.75 hours); $27,600 for counsel fee and $200 for disbursement. 

10.I note that D6’s counsel has a standing of 4 years.  There are two fee earners from D6’s solicitors: one is Mr Ng (admitted in 1993) and the other is a trainee solicitor and they charge a combined hourly rate of $4,000.  However, there are no breakdowns as to how much time was spent by the solicitors and how much time by the trainee solicitor. 

11.In my assessment, the counsel fee is reasonable and the same can be said of the manual work and the disbursement.  However, the fees claimed (for communications and professional work) by the fee-earners of D6’s solicitors are on the high side, bearing in mind that counsel was briefed.  By a very broad brush approach, a global amount of $65,000 for D6’s costs would in my view be reasonable and I so order. 

Mr K M Chong and Mr Alvin Chong, instructed by Louis K Y Pau & Co, for the plaintiff

The 2^nd defendant, represented by Mr Tsang Chee Ching Alfred, appeared in person

The 3^rd defendant, represented by Mr Jeremy Bartlett, appeared in person

Attendance of Kok & Ha Solicitors, for the 4^th defendant, excused

Mr Nathan Wong, of Haldanes, for the 5^th defendant

Ms Carol L W Wong, instructed by Winnie Leung & Co, for the 6^th defendant