Concentric Construction Ltd v. The Hong Kong Housing Authority
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 27/2017 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 28 June 2018 before Hon Lok J.
Costs assessment — Arbitration stay — Plaintiff and Defendant consented to stay court proceedings for arbitration, with Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis. Defendant claimed $309,778 for costs; Plaintiff opposed as excessive and requested disclosure. Court held summary assessment on papers appropriate and found some claimed times excessive but recognised extensive document volume necessitated significant preparation. Resulting modest reduction led to costs summarily assessed at $275,000 in favour of Defendant. Costs order confirmed by Hon Lok J on 28 June 2018.
Legal issues: Summary assessment of costs for stay application
Outcome: The Defendant’s costs of the stay application were summarily assessed and awarded in the sum of $275,000.
|
HCCT 27/2017 [2018] HKCFI 1473 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO. 27 OF 2017 ____________
____________
__________________________________ SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS __________________________________ 1.By the consent order dated 11 December 2017, I ordered that all further proceedings in this action be stayed for arbitration. I also ordered that the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant’s costs of and incidental to the stay application on an indemnity basis to be summarily assessed on papers. 2.This is the summary assessment of such costs. 3.The Defendant filed the Statement of Costs claiming a total amount of $309,778. 4.The Plaintiff’s filed the Grounds of Opposition alleging that the sums claimed are excessive. Further, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant should produce the relevant documents to the court to justify the amounts claimed under various items. 5.Since the parties agreed for the costs to be summarily assessed, it is not appropriate for the court to peruse all the documents in the solicitors’ file as in normal taxation proceedings. 6.Having considered the Statement of Costs, I agree that the times spent on items C and D are excessive even taking into account the basis for the taxation. However, the volume of documents involved in the present case is substantial and so considerable time would still need to be spent in preparing and perusing the documents. 7.The taxing down should be a modest one, and I summarily assess the Defendant’s costs in the sum of $275,000.
Written submissions by Hui & Lam LLP for the Plaintiff Written submissions by Clyde & Co for the Defendant | |||||||||||||||||||