Shi Jian, The Personal Representative of the Estate of Yang Fend, Deceased v. Dr Lam Man Ho

HCPI 128/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 128 OF 2013

__________________________

__________________________

Before: Hon Bharwaney J in Chambers

Dates of Written Submissions of the Plaintiff: 23 & 24 January 2017

Date of Written Submissions of the 1^st , 2^nd & 5^th Defendants: 23 January 2017

Date of Written Submissions of the 4^th Defendant: 23 January 2017

Date of Decision: 6 October 2017

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.On 23 February 2016, Master Leong ordered the plaintiff to pay further security for costs into court to cover the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants’ costs, and also the 4^th defendant’s costs, up to the determination of the issue of split trial. As matters progressed, the assessment of the security for costs fell to me. The learned master had previously ordered the plaintiff to pay security for costs to cover the defendants’ costs up to the exchange of witness statements and which had been paid by the plaintiff into court. This is my assessment of the quantum of the security that ought to be provided to cover these further costs up to the determination of the issue of split trial.

2.I deal first with 4^th defendants’ claim for security for costs and do so by utilising the helpful table prepared by the 4^th defendant’s solicitors.  I shall then deal with the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants’ claim for security for costs and also do so by utilising the helpful table prepared by their solicitors.

The 4^th defendants’ claim for security for costs

No.	Item No. in the Skeleton Bill[1]	Plaintiff’s grounds of objection	Suggested amount Of deductions	Response of the 4th Defendant	My Assessment	Quantum of Security for Costs
1	Hourly rate	As per the Law Society’s Circulars 08-123(PA): - -   The hourly rate of JDM shall be at the maximum rate of HK$3,500.00 per hour only -   The hourly rate of CL shall be at the maximum rate of HK$1,800.00 per hour only -   The hourly rate of PL shall be at the maximum rate of HK$1,300.00 per hour only	0.00	It is submitted that the hourly rates of HK$4,200.00, HK$2,700.00 and HK$1,500.00 should be adopted as this is a complex matter which would require specific knowledge in relation to medical negligence.  This matter also involves experts from different fields and there are a large number of documents, both English and Simplified Chinese, to be reviewed.	I allow the following hourly rates: For JDM $4,000 per hour For CL $2,500 per hour For PL $1,300 per hour
2	Part A, A.1	Time totally excessive and it is a straightforward application without taking much instructions from client. Further, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Suggest 1 hour at JDM’s rate.	33,400.00	Suggest JDM 3 hours and CL 4 hours.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 3 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 7,500 15,500
3	Part A, A.2 Comunications (i)	Time totally excessive. Further, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Suggest 1 hour at JDM’s rate.	10,450.00	Maintain JDM 1.5 hours Suggest CL 1 hour	I allow JDM 1 hour and CL 1 hour.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 2,500 6,500
4	Part A, A.2 (ii)	Time totally excessive. Further, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Suggest 1 hour at JDM’s rate and 1 hour at CL’s rate.	4,100.00	Maintain JDM 1 hour and CL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 1 hour and CL 1.5 hours.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 3,750 7,750
5	Part A, A.2 (iii)	The costs involved in correspondences with the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants shall not be charged and claimable from the Plaintiff in any event.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	18,900.00	Agreed		0
6	Part A, A.2 (iv)	There is no involvement of counsel in the security for costs application at all up to the date hereof. Even if there is counsel’s involvement, it is unnecessary.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	15,450.00	Agreed		0
7	Part A.2, professional work (i)	Time totally excessive.  Further, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Suggest 2 hours at JDM’s rate.	51,800.00	Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 3 hours to prepare the skeleton bill of costs.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 2.5 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 6,250 14,250
8	Part A.2, professional work (ii)	Time totally excessive.  Further, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Suggest 1 hours at JDM’s rate.	14,500.00	Suggest JDM 1 hour and CL 1 hour.	I allow JDM 1 hour and CL 0.5 hours.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 1,250 5,250
9	Part A.2, professional work (iii)	Time totally excessive.  Further and/or alternatively, the application for security for costs shall be dealt with on papers and there is no need to prepare chronology, hearing bundles and orders. Further, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Suggest 2 hours at JDM’s rate.	31,400.00	Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 1.5 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 3,750 11,750
10	Part A.2, professional work (iv)	The application for security for costs shall be dealt with on papers and there will be no hearing for the same.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	37,800.00	Agreed		0
11	Part A.2, Counsel fees	The application for security for costs shall be dealt with on papers and there will be no hearing for the same and there is no need to retain counsel.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	35,000.00	Agreed		0
12	Part A.2 Disbursements	Disbursements excessive. Suggest 2,000.00	8,000.00	Suggest HK$5,000.00	I allow $4,000	4,000
13	Part B.1 Communications (i)	Subject to strict proof, the preparation of the expert report shall involve minimal communication with clients.  Further and/or alternatively, there is no need to involve three fee earners but one is enough. Time totally grossly excessive.  Suggest 2 hours at JDM’s rate.	32,300.00	It is submitted that the contents of the expert report would have to be explained in detail to the client, especially in relation to liability. Suggest JDM 3 hours and CL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 1.5 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 3,750 11,750
14	Part B.1 Communications (ii)	There is absolutely no necessity to communicate with the Plaintiff’s solicitors in relation to the preparation of the expert report on liability on the part of the 4th Defendant.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	6,900.00	Agree		0
15	Part B.1 Communications (iii)	The costs concerning communications with the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants shall not be claimable against the Plaintiff in any event.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	6,900.00	Agree		0
16	Part B.1 Communications (iv)	Provided that clear letter of instructions were given to the experts and minimal clarifications thereafter, time grossly excessive for correspondence with experts.  Suggest 2 hours at JDM’s rate.	53,000.00	Suggest JDM 4 hours and CL 4 hours.	I allow JDM 3 hours and CL 3.5 hours.	JDM: 12,000 CL: 8,750 20,750
17	Part B.1. Professional Work (i)	Time totally excessive.  Suggest 2 hours at JDM’s rate.	26,000.00	As explained above, this is a complex medical negligence case and the letter of instructions would have to be concise and accurate especially in listing out the issues the expert would have to address. Suggest JDM 3 hours and CL 3 hours.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 2.5 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 6,250 14,250
18	Part B.1 Professional work (ii)	In due respect, solicitors are not allowed to give any comments on the expert reports since the same will affect the impartiality of the expert report concerned.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	48,000.00	Agreed		0
19	Part B.1. Expert fees.	Expert fees excessive.  Further, please justify the expenses incurred for the expert to come to Hong Kong for accommodation or other purposes.  Also, there is no court attendance that needs the expert’s attendance.  Suggest only 10,000.00	78,000.00	Agreed at HK$10,000		10,000
20	Part B.1 Disbursements	Disbursements excessive.  Suggest 1,000.00	10,000.00	Agreed at HK$1,000		1,000
21	Part B.2 Communications(i)	Most of the specific discovery were dealing with the matters on quantum but not on liability.  Alternatively, time is excessive. Suggest 1 hour for JDM and 1 hour for CL.	23,500.00	The documents sought will be related on both liability and quantum.  It is submitted that despite the Defendants’ repeated requests for documents, the Plaintiff’s solicitors have still failed to provide the Defendants with the documents.  Therefore, instructions will have to be sought from clients and the clients would also need to be kept informed of the developments. Suggest JDM 2 hours, CL 2 hours and PL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 1.5 hours, CL 2 hours and PL 2 hours.	JDM: 6,000 CL: 5,000 PL: 2,600 13,600
22	Part B.2 Communications (ii)	There has been no request for specific discovery against the Plaintiff up to the date hereof.  Further and/or alternatively, most of the specific discovery will be dealing with the matters on quantum but not on liability. Suggest 2 hours for CL.	54,000.00	As indicated above, the Plaintiff’s solicitors have continually failed to provide the Defendants with the requested documents.  If the Plaintiff’s solicitors still fail to provide the Defendants with the requested documents, specific discovery applications will have to be taken out. Maintain JDM 6 hours and suggest CL 6 hours.	I allow JDM 4 hours and CL 5 hours.	JDM: 16,000 CL: 12,500 28,500
23	Part B.2 Communications (iii)	There is absolutely no necessity to correspond with the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants, upon which the shall not claim costs against the Plaintiff under this head.  Further and/or alternatively, the 4th Defendants shall justify such item. Suggest to disallow the whole item.	24,000.00	It is submitted that the Plaintiff’s solicitors have sent some of the documents only to the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants’ solicitors and therefore, the 4th Defendant would have to liaise with the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants with a view to deciding what documents are outstanding.  Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 1 hour and CL 2 hours.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 5,000 9,000
24	Part B.2 Communications (iv)	There is no involvement of counsel’s work subject to strict proof.  Further and/or alternatively, it is not necessary to involve counsel in this intended application.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	21,000.00	As submitted above, this is a complex medical negligence case in which Counsel’s advice would be required from time to time (the Plaintiff has instructed Counsel to attend all of the Checklist Review Hearings).  Counsel would have to be informed of the latest development and would need to advice on what further documents are required from the Plaintiff.  Suggest JDM 2 hours, CL 2 hours and PL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours and PL 2 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 5,000 PL: 2,600 15,600
25	Part B.2 Professional work (i)	There is no specific discovery application now.   Further and/or alternatively, even if there is such application, the majority of the items asked for are items for quantum but not for liability.  Suggest 1 hour for JDM and 2 hours for CL.	89,800.00	As stated above, the documents would relate to both liability and quantum. Maintain JDM 10 hours, CL 12 hours and PL 15 hours.	I allow JDM 5 hours, CL 6 hours and PL 7 hours.	JDM: 20,000 CL: 15,000 PL: 9,100 44,100
26	Part B.2 Professional work (ii)	There is no specific discovery application now. Suggest to tax off the whole item.	28,200.00	Maintain the view that, since the Plaintiff’s solicitors have continually failed in providing the requested documents, specific discovery applications are very likely to be taken out. Maintain JDM 3.5 hours and CL 5 hours.	I disallow entire amount.	0
27	Part B.2 Counsel fees	Since there is no specific discovery application, there is no need to involve counsel.  Suggest to tax off the whole item.	15,000.00	Agreed item to be taxed off.		0
28.	Part B.2 Disbursements	Disbursements excessive and subject to proof.   Suggest 1,000.00	4,000.00	Agreed at HK$1,000.00		1,000
29.	Part B.3 Communications (i)	There is no such application at all.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	16,800.00	It is submitted that once the Plaintiff has provided the documents requested by the Defendants, there will be a need to ask the Plaintiff’s witnesses to address certain issues – in relation to both liability and quantum.  Therefore, instructions will have to be taken and advice will have to be given to the client. Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 1 hour and CL 2 hours.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 5,000 9,000
30.	Part B.3 Communications (ii)	There is no such application at all.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	26,100.00	As stated above, further questions will definitely be raised after the Plaintiff has provided the Defendants with the requested documents – which to date, the Plaintiff has still failed to do. Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 3 hours.	I disallow entire amount.	0
31.	Part B.3(iii)	There is no such application at all.  Further and/or alternatively, the costs involved in the correspondences with the solicitors for the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants shall not be counted against the Plaintiff.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	21,000.00	Agreed.		0
32.	Part B.3(iv)	There is no such application at all.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	16,800.00	Refer to our submissions above. As this is a complex medical negligence case, Counsel will have to be involved in particular on obtaining further information relating to the case.  Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours.	I disallow entire amount.	0
33.	Part B.3 Professional work (i)	There is no such application at all. Suggest taxing off the whole item.	107,400.00	Please see submissions above.  There will be large quantity of documents and specific questions relating to the case will have to be asked. To date, despite numerous correspondences sent to the Plaintiff requesting for clarifications, the Plaintiff has not provided the Defendants with any reasonable explanation and therefore, the 4th Defendant submits that it is necessary to request for answers to interrogatories once the Plaintiff has provided the Defendants with all the documents sought. Suggest JDM 12 hours and CL 12 hours.	I disallow entire amount.	0
34.	Part B.3 Professional work (ii)	There is no such application and hearing at all.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	28,200.00	Please see submissions above. Suggest JDM 3 hours and CL 3 hours.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
35.	Part B.3 Counsel fees	There is no such application and hearing at all and there is no such necessity to retain counsel.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	35,000.00	Suggest HK$20,000	I disallow the entire amount.	0
36.	Part B.3 Disbursements	Disbursements either not necessary at all or alternatively excessive.  Suggest 1,000.00.	4,000.00	Suggest $2,500.00	I allow $1,000.	1,000
37.	Part C Communications (i)	Time excessive and further there is no such necessity to correspond with clients in view of the compliance and implementations of the directions given by the court from time to time.  Suggest 1 hour for JDM.	20,200.00	It is submitted that as the clients would have to be informed of the directions especially in relation to the progress of the case. Suggest 3 hours for JDM and 2 hours for CL.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 5,000 13,000
38.	Part C Communications (ii)	Time excessive.  Suggest 1 hour for CL.	14,700.00	The Plaintiff’s solicitors have still failed, since the commencement of the proceedings in October 2013, to provide the Defendants with documents requested and therefore directions cannot be easily agreed between the parties. Suggest JDM 2 hours and CL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 1 hour and CL 2 hours.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 5,000 9,000
39.	Part C Communications (iii)	The costs charged between the respective Defendants shall not be charged against the Plaintiff in any event.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	16,800.00	Agreed		0
40.	Part C Communications (iv)	There is no involvement of counsel and there is no need for involving counsel in the checklist review hearings.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	6,300.00	Counsel’s advice will have to be obtained especially in relation to appointment of experts and further directions. Suggest JDM 0.5 hour and CL 1 hour.	I allow JDM 0.5 hours and CL 0.5 hour.	JDM: 2,000 CL: 1,250 3,250
41.	Part C.1 Professional Work (i)	Time excessive.  Suggest 1 hour at JDM’s rate.	9,100.00	As the Plaintiff has still failed, since the proceedings were commenced in October 2013, to have the pleadings properly amended to the official administrators and to provide the Defendants with the requested documents, it is submitted that the action cannot be set down for trial soon and further Checklist Review Hearings will be required.  Maintain JDM 1 hour, CL 2 hours and PL 2 hours.	I allow JDM 1 hour, CL 1 hour and PL 2 hours.	JDM: 4,000 CL: 2,500 PL: 2,600 9,100
42.	Part C.1 Professional Work (ii)	Time excessive.  Suggest 1.5 hours at CL’s rate.	25,500.00	As stated above, a Checklist Review Hearing already took place on 25 January 2017 and a further Checklist Review Hearing is scheduled for 7 July 2017.  Furthermore, this is a complex medical negligence case with experts specializing in different fields therefore it is submitted that the hearings would have to be prepared by the different fee earners. Maintain JDM 2.5 hours and CL 5 hours.	I allow JDM 2 hours and CL 4 hours.	JDM: 8,000 CL: 10,000 18,000
		Total suggested amount of deductions: -	1,129,300.00 ===========
		Total suggested amount to be allowed: -	113,500.00 ==========	624,700.00		296,900.00 or 300,000 rounded up

The 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants’ claim for security for costs

No.	Item No. in the Bill of Incurred Costs[2]	Plaintiff’s grounds of objection	Plaintiff’s Suggested amount of deductions	Response of the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants	My Assessment	Quantum of Security for Costs
43.	Hourly rate	As per the Law Society’s Circulars 08-123(PA): - -   The hourly rate of DKFK shall be at the maximum rate of HK$4,000.00 per hour only -   The hourly rate of OOT shall be at the maximum rate of HK$3,800.00 per hour only -   The hourly rate of HYC shall be at the maximum rate of HK$2,200.00 per hour only -   The hourly rate of trainee solicitor shall be at the maximum rate of HK$1,300.00 per hour only	0.00	Disagree. Please see White Book 62/App/22 which says that a master has discretion to increase the hourly rate allowed if the fee earner exercising specialist skill. The fee earnerscomprise of medical negligence specialists, the slightly higher rates used by in the Bill of Incurred Costs should be permitted. All the work claimed has been carried out without the assistance of Counsel.	I allow the following hourly rates: For DKFK $4,000 per hour For OOT $4,000 per hour For HWC $2,500 per hour For TE $1,500 per hour.
44.	Part A(a) (i)	The time is grossly excessive and subject to proof.  Further, there is nothing necessary to talk to clients about the application for further security for costs.  Suggest a global sum of 2 hours at HK$2,200.00 per hour at HYC’s revised rate	28,420.00	Disagree.  Authority was required to be sought from clients to make further application. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 1 hour and HYC 5 hours.	OOT: 4,000 HYC: 12,500 16,500
45.	Part A (a) (ii)	The time is grossly excessive and subject to proof.  Suggest a global sum of 1 hour at HK$2,200.00 per hour at HYC’s revised rate	16,880.00	Five letters were received from S.H. Chan and four letters were sent from HWB including the need to comment in detail on a six-page draft joint letter to the Court proposed by P's solicitors on 3 May 2016 These letters are in Part A(a)(ii) of the Bundle. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 1 hour and HYC 3 hours.	OOT: 4,000 HYC: 7,500 11,500
46.	Part A (a)(iii)	There is absolute no necessity in communicating with the solicitors for the 4th Defendant in respect of the current security for costs application by the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants which is entirely an individual and separate application without involvement of the 4th Defendant at all.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	16,650.00	Disagree.  Communications were and are necessary to coordinate the applications. We agree to make deduction of 2 hours for HYC i.e. HK$6,000 only	I disallow the entire amount.	0
47.	Part A(a)(iv)	Time spent unnecessarily as it only repeated chasing the court for an outcome for security for costs upon which it was the court order either by Master Leong and by the Honourable Mr. Justice Bharwaney that the same should be dealt with on papers subject to further directions. Suggest disallowing the whole item	9,510.00	The correspondence was necessary. We agree to make deduction of 1 hour for HYC i.e. HK$3,000 only	I allow OOT 0.5 hour and HYC 1.5 hour.	OOT: 2,000 HYC: 3,750 5,750
48.	Part A (b)(i)	This is a quite simple and straightforward security for costs application without much difficulty. There is no need for 4 fee earners to get involved in the necessary work but only one is enough.  Suggest 10 hours at HK$2,200.00 per hour, i.e. HYC’s hourly rate	243,760.00	Disagree. Although P had conceded that he was liable to pay some amount of security at the outset of this application, P's Counsel's submissions of 23 January 2017 submitted that the Court should not order P to pay same. This required us to prepare detailed submissions for the CLR accordingly. Further, significant time was spent in preparing the four affirmations of David Kam-Fai Kan, including the Bill of Incurred Costs which covers costs incurred for 15 months. The time claimed is therefore realistic and necessary. We agree to make deduction of 4 hours for OOT and HYC i.e. HK$28,800 only	I allow DKFK 2 hours, OOT 6 hours, HYC 10 hours and TE 15 hours.	DKFK: 8,000 OOT: 24,000 HYC: 25,000 TE: 22,500 79,500
49.	Part A (b)(ii)	Arguments on hourly rate only	100.00	Not agreed	I allow HYC 0.2 hours.	HYC: 500 500
50.	Part A (b)(iii)	Only HYC attended both the hearing and the preparation work was not complex at all in view that it was only a summons call-over hearing for security for costs and a checklist review hearing.  There is no need for 3 fee earners to get involved but only 1 is enough.  Also time is excessive.  Suggest HYC at 3 hour at the revised rate of HK$2,200.00 per hour and TS at 3 hours at the revised rate of HK$1,300.00 per hour	66,110.00	Hearings were attended by HYC and TE, OOT supervised the preparation for the hearings. Suggest allow HYC in full and 10 hours for TE to prepare bundle and assist. i.e. deduct $39,320	I allow OOT 1 hour, HYC 4 hours and TE 10 hours.	OOT: 4,000 HYC: 10,000 TE: 15,000 29,000
51.	Part B.1(a) (a) (i)	Time excessive for communicating with clients concerning the compilation of the expert report on obstetrics.  Suggest 0.5. hour at HYC’s revised rate of HK$2,200.00 per hour	8,950.00	Do not agree. The expert reports are crucial to the dispute and the time claimed is necessary. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 1.5 hours and HYC 0.3 hours.	OOT: 6,000 HYC: 750 6,750
52.	Part B.1(a) (ii)	Argument on hourly rate	150.00	Not agreed	I allow HYC 0.3 hours	HYC: 750 750
53.	Part B.1(a)(iii)	There is absolutely no necessity to correspond with the 4th Defendant save and except the matter on discovery against the 4th Defendant, upon which the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants shall not claim costs against the Plaintiff under this head.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	1,080.00	Disagree.  Communications were and are necessary to coordinate the applications. We do not agree to deduct anything from this item.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
54.	Part B.1(a)(iv)	The expert(s) shall prepare the expert reports on liability on his own feet, provided that clear instructions were given to the expert(s) as well as clarifications if necessary. Suggest only 1 hours at HYC’s revised rate	7,700.00	We agree to deduct this item.   .		0
55.	Part B.1(a)(b) Professional work (i)	The time is totally excessive for drafting the letter of instructions to experts. Suggest 1 hour at HYC’s revised rate.	9,380.00	Do not agree. The expert reports are crucial to the dispute and the time claimed is necessary. P's solicitors have already commented in point 12 that experts shall prepare expert reports "on his own feet, provided that clear instructions were given". This therefore means that the instructions need to be properly prepared and are important. We do not agree to deduct anything from this item.	I allow HYC 3 hours and TE 1.5 hours.	HYC: 7,500 TE: 2,250 9,750
56.	Part B.1(a) (b) Professional work (ii)	In due respect, solicitors are not allowed to give any comments on the expert reports since the same will affect the impartiality of the expert report concerned.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	45,900.00	This is a claim for reviewing the report. Reviewing the report must be necessary and recoverable. Solicitors can make comments on the contents of the report to improve clarity, make sure the report is clear and understandable and seek clarifications on parts of the report that the solicitor cannot understand so they can advise the client. We do not agree to deduct anything from this item.	I allow DKDF 1 hour, OOT 3 hours, HYC 4 hours and TE 1 hour.	DKDF: 4,000 OOT: 12,000 HYC: 10,000 TE: 1,500 27,500
57.	Part B.1 (c) Expert fees	The expert fees are excessive.  Suggest 20,000.00	10,000.00	We do not agree to make any deduction.	I allow $25,000.	25,000
58.	Part B.1.(b)(a) (i)	Time excessive for communicating with clients concerning the compilation of the expert report on anaesthesia.  Suggest 1 hour at HYC’s revised rate of HK$2,200.00 per hour	18,890.00	We do not agree. The expert reports are crucial to the dispute, and reporting to clients is necessary. The time claimed is therefore necessary. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 1.5 hours and HYC 3 hours.	OOT: 6,000 HYC: 7,500 13,500
59.	Part B.1(b)(a) (ii)	In due respect, solicitors are not allowed to give any comments on the expert reports since the same will affect the impartiality of the expert report concerned.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	33,360.00	We agree to deduct this item.		0
60.	Part B.1(b)(b) (i)	The time is totally excessive for drafting the letter of instructions to experts.  Suggest 2 hours at HYC’s revised rate.	13,330.00	Do not agree. The expert reports are crucial to the dispute and the time claimed is necessary. P's solicitors have already commented in point 12 that experts shall prepare expert reports "on his own feet, provided that clear instructions were given". This therefore means that the instructions need to be properly prepared and are important. We do not agree to deduct anything from this item.	I allow HYC 4 hours.	HYC: 10,000 10,000
61.	Part B.1.(b)(b) (ii)	In due respect, solicitors are not allowed to give any comments on the expert reports since the same will affect the impartiality of the expert report concerned.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	130,860.00	This is a claim for reviewing the report. Reviewing the report must be necessary and recoverable. The solicitors can make comments on the contents of the report to improve clarity, make sure the report is clear and understandable and seek clarifications on parts of the report that the solicitor cannot understand so they can advise the client. We do not agree to deduct anything from this item.	I allow DKFK 2 hours, OOT 4 hours, HYC 10 hours and TE 2 hours.	DKFK: 8,000 OOT: 16,000 HYC: 25,000 TE: 3,000 52,000
62.	Part B.1(b) (c) Expert fees	The expert fees are excessive.  Suggest 20,000.00	7,000.00	We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow $25,000.	25,000
63.	Part B.2 (a)(i)	Time totally excessive and there is no formal specific discovery application at all.  Also, there is no need to involve 3 fee earners but one is enough.  Suggest 5 hours of HYC at her revised rate	104,200.00	Specific discovery has been requested via correspondence and client's approval was required before engaging in such detailed correspondence (see response to point 22 below for details).  This incurs costs which are recoverable. Most of the work has been delegated to HYC and approved by OOT. This results in costs savings. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 5 hours, HYC 10 hours and TE 1 hour.	OOT: 20,000 HYC: 25,000 TE: 1,500 46,500
64.	Part B.2 (a)(ii)	Time totally excessive and there is no formal specific discovery application at all.  Also, there is no need to involve 3 fee earners but one is enough.  Suggest 5 hours of HYC at her revised rate	110,290.00	Specific discovery has been requested via correspondence including the sending of 13 letters and reviewing 17 letters from P's solicitors. These incurred costs are recoverable. Most of the work has been delegated to HYC and approved by OOT. This results in costs savings. We do not agree to make any deduction.	I allow OOT 5 hours, HYC 10 hours and TE 3 hours.	OOT: 20,000 HYC: 25,000 TE: 4,500 49,500
65.	Part B.2(a) (iii)	There is absolutely no necessity to correspond with the 4th Defendant, upon which the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants shall not claim costs against the Plaintiff under this head.  Further and/or alternatively, the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants shall justify such item. Suggest to disallow the whole item.	21,990.00	Disagree.  Requests for specific discovery have been made against D4 via correspondence before making applications.  Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. We do not agree to deduct anything from this item.	I allow OOT 1 hour, HYC 2 hours and TE 1 hour.	OOT: 4,000 HYC: 5,000 TE: 1,500 10,500
66.	Part B.2(a) (iv)	There was no correspondence that can be shown in relation to discovery, and even if there was, it was not necessary.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	1,620.00	Disagree. A letter was sent to the Court on 5 July 2016, copied to P’s solicitors (see page 445A of Bundle). We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow HYC 0.6 hours.	HYC: 1,500 1,500
67.	Part B.2(b)(i)	Time grossly excessive.  Also, there is no need to involve 3 fee earners but one is enough.  Suggest 5 hours of HYC at her revised rate	351,190.00	Disagree. P and D4 collectively disclosed five bundles of documents, which were required to be reviewed before making further requests. We currently have two further bundles of documents after making a series of requests for specific discovery. Two applications for specific discovery were made against D4. Work has been properly delegated to junior staff in order to save costs. The leg work of reviewing the discovery was clearly carried out by TE under the supervision of HYC. In any event, although two partners, OOT and DKFK were involved, there was no overlap because the affidavits they swore each supported a different application made against D4. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow DKFK 1.5 hours, OOT 10 hours, HYC 15 hours and TE 20 hours.	DKFK: 6,000 OOT: 40,000 HYC: 37,500 TE: 30,000 113,500
68.	Part B.2.(b) (ii)	There is no formal specific discovery application up to now.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	15,360.00	Part of the Case Management Conference related to the specific discovery application letters and orders were made pursuant to those letters. We agree to deduct $10,000.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
69.	Part B.2.(b) (iii)	There is no formal specific discovery application up to now.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	46,690.00	These documents were prepared in 5 April and May 2016, and were not filed only because P's solicitors have requested us not to do so in correspondence. However, they will be filed, depending on P's responses to our requests. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
70.	Part B.3(a)(i)	There is no such application at all.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	15,240.00	Applications have been made against D4. Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deduction.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
71.	Part B.3.(a) (ii)	There is no such application at all. Suggest to disallow the whole item.	26,250.00	Applications have been made against D4. Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deduction.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
72.	Part B.3.(a) (iii)	There is no such application at all.  Further and/or alternatively, the correspondences against the 4th Defendant shall not be counted against the Plaintiff.  Suggest taxing off the whole item.	68,250.00	Applications have been made against D4. Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deduction.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
73.	Part B.3.(a) (iv)	There is no such application at all.  Further, it shall be the matter between the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants and the 4th Defendant and not related to the Plantiff at all.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	6,750.00	Applications have been made against D4. Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deduction.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
74.	Part B.3.(b) (i)	There is no such application at all.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	194,050.00	Applications have been made against D4. Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deduction.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
75.	Part B.3.(b) (ii)	There is no such application and hearing at all.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	78,480.00	Hearings regarding the applications for requests for answers to interrogatories against D4 took place on 7 June and 5 July 2016. Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I disallow the entire amount.	0
76.	Part C (a)(i)	Time excessive and further there is no such necessity to correspond with clients in view of the compliance and implementations of the directions given by the court from time to time.  Suggest 1 hour for HYC.	11,930.00	There is a clear obligation to inform the client of the results of the checklist review hearing on 13 June 2016. In this case the checklist review hearing dealt with a number of issues. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 2 hours and HYC 1 hour.	OOT: 8,000 HYC: 2,500 10,500
77.	Part C (a)(ii)	Time excessive.  Suggest 1 hour for HYC.	5,990.00	We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow OOT 1 hour and HYC 0.5 hours	OOT: 4,000 HYC: 1,250 5,250
78.	Part C (a)(iii)	The costs charged between the respective Defendants shall not be charged against the Plaintiff in any event.  Suggest to disallow the whole item.	2,160.00	Such costs would not have been incurred had the claim not been made by the Plaintiff. These costs form part the action and should form part of the security. We do not agree to make any deductions.	I disallow entire amount.	0
79.	Part C (a)(iv)	There is no need to have correspondence with court.  Suggest disallowing the whole item.	10,170.00	Disagree. A letter was written to the Court on 12 October 2015 (see page 613A of Bundle) We do not agree to make any deductions.	I allow HYC 2 hours.	HYC: 5,000 5,000
80.	Part C (b)(i)	Only HYC attended the hearing and the preparation work was not complex at all in view that it was only checklist review hearing.  There is no need for 3 fee earners to get involved but only 1 is enough.  Also time is excessive.  Suggest HYC at 3 hour at the revised rate of HK$2,200.00 per hour	46,560.00	HYC attended all checklist review hearings with TE. There has been proper delegation of work. The documents were approved by OOT. We agree to deduct $10,000.	I allow OOT 2 hours, HYC 4 hours and TE 5 hours.	OOT: 8,000 HYC: 10,000 TE: 7,500 25,500
81.	Part C (b)(ii)	Only HYC attended the hearing and the preparation work was not complex at all in view that it was only checklist review hearing.  There is no need for 3 fee earners to get involved but only 1 is enough.  Also time is excessive.  Suggest HYC at 2 hour at the revised rate of HK$2,200.00 per hour	29,620.00	HYC attended all checklist review hearings with TE. There has been proper delegation of work. The documents were approved by OOT. We agree to deduct $6,000.	I allow OOT 0.5 hours, HYC 5 hours and TE 2 hours.	OOT: 2,000 HYC: 12,500 TE: 3,000 17,500
82.	Disbursements	Subject to proof by the 1st, 2nd and 5th Defendants. Suggest HK$5,000.00	104,060.80	Agree to deduct HK$104,060.80
		Total suggested amount to be deducted: -	1,918,880.80 ===========	250,440.8 ===========
		Total suggested amount to be allowed: -	145,700.20 ==========	1,814,140.2 ==========		598,250 or 600,000 rounded up

3.I order the plaintiff to pay further security for costs into court in the sum of $600,000 to cover the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants’ costs up to the determination of the issue of split trial.  I also order the plaintiff to pay further security for costs into court in the sum of $300,000 to cover the 4^th defendant’s costs up to the determination of the issue of split trial. I direct the parties to submit an agreed draft order for my approval.

Mr Edward Fan, instructed by S. H. Chan & Co., for the plaintiff

Howse Williams Bowers for the 1^st, 2^nd and 5^th defendants

Norton Rose Fulbright Hong Kong for the 4^th defendant