Lau Wing Yan and Others v. Chu Kong and Others

HCA 2562/2014

[2018] HKCFI 1270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 2562 OF 2014

________________________

________________________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

THE APPLICATIONS

1.The following applications were before this Court:

(a)   The plaintiffs’ summons for leave to the parties to adduce expert evidence on the profits that could have been generated by the 4^th plaintiff from the commercial operation of the vessel as per the terms as set out in the summons; and

(b)   The 1^st and the 3^rd defendants’ (“the defendants”) applications for leave to amend their Amended Defence and Defence respectively as per the drafts annexed with the summons.

2.The applications were heard and decision made on 17 May 2018.

3.The defendants failed in their applications for leave to amend their respective Amended Defence.  As a result, the plaintiffs’ application succeeded.

4.On the question of costs of the respective applications, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on party to party basis, with certificate for two counsel.  Such costs were ordered to be summarily assessed by submissions on paper.

5.The plaintiffs had submitted their bills of costs, which amounted to $596,385, including counsel fees and disbursements.  The bills have set out details as to the time required by the fee earners.

6.The defendants have submitted their comments in opposition to the plaintiffs’ bills (“the comments”).  The comments were made by a law costs draftsman.  The defendants took the view that, having taken into account of the deductions they proposed, the net amount of costs should be $344,936.

7.I have considered the defendants’ oppositions to the plaintiffs’ bills.  I agree with their views in respect of the following items:

(a)   the hourly rates claimed by the plaintiffs are excessive because they claim the new rates for the solicitors, the trainee solicitor and the litigation clerk even before 1 January 2018, the operative date for the new rates;

(b)   the rates charged under the new scale effective from 1 January 2018 are above those as set out in the Law Society’s Circular dated 11 December 2017 on a party and party taxation without any explanation for the higher rates;

(c)   the charge of 6 minutes per unit should not be allowed across the board as advised in the Taxation Guide compiled by the Taxing Masters;

(d)   certain duplicated works done by the solicitors and the litigation clerks as pointed out in the comments.

8.It is unnecessary to set out details of the comments as assessment of costs is on a broad-brush basis.  See Poon Shu Fan v Wong Tin Yan & Another [2012] 5 HKLRD 512 at §12.

9.The costs of the applications are assessed under O.62, r.9A RHC at HK$440,000, inclusive of all costs and expenses for the applications, the hearing and costs reserved.  The defendants are to pay the said sum to the plaintiffs within 14 days from the date of this order.

Mr Anson Wong SC and Mr Peter Chung, instructed by DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the Plaintiffs

Mr William Wong SC and Mr Michael Lok, instructed by Howse Williams Bowers, for the 1^st and 3^rd Defendants