Tsoi Chik Sang Lawrence v. Tasty Catering Group Ltd and Others

CACV 94 /2019

[2019] HKCA 609

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 94 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO 823 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the decision on costs of the Court):

1.On 3 May 2019, we handed down our judgment ([2019] HKCA 481) ordering that the Notice of Appeal and the Supplementary Notice of Appeal issued by the intended intervener, Cheng Hung Kit (“Cheng”), to be struck out as no leave to appeal has been obtained to appeal against an interlocutory decision. We decided that Cheng should pay the plaintiff and the defendants the costs of and occasioned by the appeal. We directed the plaintiff and the defendants to lodge their statement of costs for summary assessment with leave to Cheng to respond within seven days thereafter.

2.Cheng has been acting in person throughout as the intended intervener.

3.He is also the 9^th defendant in these proceedings.  In that other capacity, he has engaged solicitors, C K Mok & Co, to act for him in the court below and in this appeal.

4.When the Registrar of Civil Appeal wrote to the parties on 19 March 2019 raising with them that the Notice of Appeal is liable to be struck out for failing to obtain leave to appeal, he directed that if Cheng objects to this course, he may lodge his submission on or before 4 April. Cheng did so and his letter of 3 April to the Registrar was copied to the solicitors for the plaintiff (Tsang, Chan & Wong), the solicitors for the 1^st to 3^rd, 7^th to 8^th defendants (Johnny K K Leung & Co), the solicitors for the 4^th defendant (CKL Partners), and the solicitors for the 9^th defendant (C K Mok & Co).

5.On 8 April, I gave leave to the plaintiff and the defendants to respond to the submission of Cheng by 15 April, with indication that the Court of Appeal will determine on paper whether the Notice of Appeal ought to be struck out.

6.The court received two submissions in response.  They are from the plaintiff, and the 1^st to 3^rd, 7^th to 8^th defendants.  The 4^th defendant and the 9^th defendant, who had been served with Cheng’s submission, did not lodge any submission.

7.Subsequent to our judgment, and pursuant to the direction to lodge statement of costs for summary assessment, the court has received statements of costs from Tsang, Chan & Wong, Johnny K K Leung & Co and C K Mok & Co.  Under our judgment, Cheng is liable to pay the costs of the parties represented by these firms of solicitors.

8.Cheng has lodged his response in respect of each of these statements of costs.

9.The total amount in the statement of costs submitted by Tsang, Chan & Wong is $38,175.  The total amount in the statement of costs submitted by Johnny K K Leung & Co is $89,876.  And the total sum in the statement of costs submitted by C K Mok & Co is $20,422.

10.Our assessment of costs is as follows.

11.There is no good reason to reduce the hourly rates of the fee earners in all of the statements of costs.

12.The amount of costs claimed by Tsang, Chan & Wong is allowed in full.  The same applies to the costs claimed by C K Mok & Co.

13.In respect of the amount of costs claimed by Johnny K K Leung & Co, this is reduced to $56,676.

Tsang, Chan & Wong, for the Plaintiff

Johnny K K Leung & Co, for the 1^st to 3^rd, 7^th to 8^th Defendants

C K Mok & Co, for the 9^th Defendant

Cheng Hung Kit, intended intervener, acting in person