Gossip Daily Ltd v. Next Media Magazines Ltd and Others

HCA 305/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 305 OF 2018

______________

______________

____________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________________

The application

1.On 27 August 2018, I allowed the defendants’ application by summons of 10 April 2018 (the “Summons”) for a stay of all proceedings in this action pending arbitration.  On the question of costs, I made an order nisi that the costs of and occasioned by the application be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants on an indemnity basis, to be taxed forthwith if not agreed.  I also gave directions on the manner in which any application for summary assessment might be made.

2.On 30 August 2018, a set of submissions together with a Statement of Costs were filed on behalf of the defendants.  They seek therebysummary assessment of their costs (stated to be $205,100) in lieu of taxation.

3.On 13 September 2018, the plaintiff filed its List of Objections.

4.By letter dated 17 September 2018, the defendants confirmed that they did not have any reply submissions to made.

5.There is no objection from the plaintiff that costs should be assessed summarily.  Given the nature of the application, I am also satisfied that summary assessment is appropriate.  I therefore proceed to do so.

6.There is no objection from the plaintiff that costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis.  I proceed to do so, and am guided in that regard by Order 62, rule 28(4A) of the Rules of the High Court.  

7.I have considered all the submissions and documents that have been placed before me:

(a)   I note and agree with the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff that the application involved no factual dispute, and that the affirmations made both in support and opposition of the application were brief;

(b)   I agree with the objections that the total man-hours of 15 hours said to have been spent on “Attendance on client, counsel and the other side” were excessive.  No reply to the contrary has been made.  The total claimed amount under this head of $67,800 is either unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount.  Giving the defendants the benefit of any doubts, I am of the view that 3 hours each by the Partner and Associate would have been reasonable;

(c)   I agree with the objections that the total man-hours of 15 hours said to have been spent on “Preparation and perusal of documents (preparing summons and affirmation in supporting, reviewing affirmation in opposition, preparing affirmation in reply etc)” were excessive.  No reply to the contrary has been made.  The total claimed amount under this head of $55,000 is either unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount.  Giving the defendants the benefit of any doubts, I am of the view that half of the claimed amount would have been reasonable;

(d)   I agree with the objections that given the engagement of counsel, the total man-hours of 6 hours said to have been spent on “Preparation for hearing (skeleton submissions, hearing bundles etc)” were excessive.  No reply to the contrary has been made.  The total claimed amount under this head of $23,600 is either unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount.  Giving the defendants the benefit of any doubts, I am of the view that half of the claimed amount would have been reasonable.

8.In the light of the above, and adopting a broad brush approach,I summarily assessed the costs to be HK$125,000.

Written submission from Withers, for the plaintiff

Written submission by Mr Kaung Wai Ming Alexander, of
Reed Smith Richards Butler, for the 1^st to 3^rd defendants