X, S v. L, B
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 11635/2016 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 2 August 2019 before Deputy District Judge K.K. PANG.
Costs – Summary assessment – Matrimonial cause – 1st Appointment hearing – Petitioner claimed $47,860 including counsel fee – Respondent argued $9,095.64 – Court found claim excessive as matter involved no complicated issues and preparation work reusable – Allowed 2 hours GC and 30 minutes DH plus $8,000 counsel fee – Total costs assessed at $13,440.
Legal issues: Summary assessment of costs
Outcome: Costs summarily assessed at $13,440 payable by the respondent to the petitioner.
|
FCMC11635/2016 [2019]HKFC195 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NUMBER 11635 OF 2016 ----------------------------
------------------------ Coram : Before Deputy District Judge K.K. PANG (Disposal on papers) Petitioner’s Statement of Costs : 11 July 2019 Respondent’s Statement of Objections : 19 July 2019 Date of Handing Down of this Ruling : 2 August 2019 ------------------------------ Summary Assessment of costs ------------------------------ 1.This is the summary assessment of the petitioner’s costs arose from the 1st Appointment hearing dated 10 July 2019 pursuant to the paragraphs (2) to (3) of the costs order made on the same day. By her Statement of Costs dated 11 July 2019 and filed on 12 July 2019, the petitioner made a claim of totally $47,860, of which $25,000 belongs to 50% of fee for counsel’s attendance. By his Statement of Objections dated 19 July 2019, the respondent argued that the reasonable sum is $9,095.64. However, the respondent did not take issue on the hourly charging rate of the petitioner’s solicitors. 3.Looking at the matter in the round, I accept the respondent’s argument that the petitioner’s claim is excessive. This is a 1st Appointment hearing. There is no complicated issues of law or fact involved. Additionally, as I already indicated during the said hearing, I believe that most of the preparation work already done by the petitioner’s solicitors can actually be reused at the adjourned 1st Appointment hearing dated 4 December 2019. According to the court records, the hearing time of the 1st Appointment dated 10 July 2019 is approximately 30 minutes. Giving a broad brush approach, and taking items A, B and C of the petitioner’s Statement of Costs dated 11 July 2019 together, I allow 2 hr of GC, i.e. $3,460, and 30 minutes of DH, i.e. $1,930, totally $5,390. As regards counsel fee, I consider that the sum of $8,000 being 50% of the brief fee is reasonable. On top of the above, I allow item E1, i.e. copying charges of $50, but I disallow item E2 for the absence of necessary details. 4.In conclusion, it is ordered that the costs payable by the respondent to the petitioner pursuant to the paragraphs (2) and (3) of the costs order dated 10 July 2019 be summarily assessed at $13,440.
Messrs. Ho & Ip, solicitors for the petitioner Messrs. Yan Lawyers, solicitors for the respondent | ||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under FCMC 11635/2016