Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 123/2018

[2019] HKCA 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 123 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 63 OF 2016)

_______________

BETWEEN
	CHAN TSUI YAN	Applicant
	and
	SOCIAL WORKERS REGISTRATION BOARD	Respondent
	CHAU SHUI HOI MALINA	1^st Interested Party
	NG WANG TSANG	2^nd Interested Party
	NG YUEN CHING WILLIS	3^rd Interested Party

_______________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung and Yuen JJA in Court

Date of Statement of Costs: 5 June 2019

Date of Objections: 13 June 2019

Date of Decision on Costs: 25 June 2019

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the decision of the court):

1.By a Judgment given on 11 March 2019, this court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the Judgment of Hon Lok J refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 2 April 2019 the Applicant applied by a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal our Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.For reasons given in a Judgment dated 31 May 2019, the Notice of Motion was dismissed with an order that costs be paid by the Applicant to the Respondent. Directions were given for a statement of costs to be filed and served by the Respondent within 7 days and for objections to be lodged by the Applicant within 14 days thereafter.

4.The Respondent served a statement of costs on 5 June 2019. On 13 June 2019 the Applicant filed a document stating that he did not understand his online translation of the statement of costs, he has not been able to arrive at an understanding with the Respondent’s solicitors in relation to the statement of costs, and that he intended to apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal.

5.The online translation which the Applicant had attached to his document is reasonably comprehensible as it sets out the fee earners’ names, their experience, their respective hourly rates, the items of work done by them, and counsel’s fees. Even if the Applicant had any difficulties understanding it, he could have approached the Respondent’s solicitors for a Chinese version of the statement of costs. In other words, he could have lodged objections but he has not done so.

6.Further the Applicant’s intention to apply to the Court of Final Appeal for leave to appeal does not operate as a stay of the costs assessment.

7.Having considered the statement of costs, we take the view that a reasonable sum would be $32,300 which we order the Applicant to pay to the Respondent.