Xu Liu Chun v. Wu Chang Jiang and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 3166/2014 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 September 2019.

1. On 27.6.2019, I refused the Plaintiff’s application to vary the costs order nisi made on by this court on 13 July 2018 by which the costs of the trial on the issue of liability is reserved pending the decision on quantum.  I also awarded the Respondents costs of the application, the quantum of which to be assessed summary.

Cited by 7 cases

Case No.HCMP 3166/2014[2019] HKCFI 2180
Court
High Court CFI
Date06 Sep 2019
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 3166/2014

[2019] HKCFI 2180

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 3166 OF 2014

________________________

  IN THE MATTER of JIANG YUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
 

and

  IN THE MATTER of Section 724 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622)

________________________

BETWEEN    
  XU LIU CHUN Petitioner

and

  WU CHANG JIANG (吳長江) 1st Respondent
  JIANG YUAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 2nd Respondent
  (江源國際發展有限公司)  

________________________

Before: Hon Alex Lee J in Chambers (Open to Public)
Date of Hearing: 27 June 2019
Date of Written Submission by the Petitioner: 28 August 2019
Date of Written Submission by the 1st Respondent: 15 August 2019
Date of Decision on Costs: 6 September 2019

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Introduction

1.On 27.6.2019, I refused the Plaintiff’s application to vary the costs order nisi made on by this court on 13 July 2018 by which the costs of the trial on the issue of liability is reserved pending the decision on quantum.  I also awarded the Respondents costs of the application, the quantum of which to be assessed summary.

2.On 12 August 2019, solicitors acting for the Respondents filed a Statement of Costs seeking a total of $177,077.  On 28 August 2019, solicitors acting for the Petitioner filed their objections supposing a total of not more than $71,67.66.  I have considered both. 

Summary assessment

3.By a broad brush approach, I am of the view that, since counsel was instructed and briefed to represent the Respondent at the application, items D2 (Perusal of documents by solicitors), D3 (Legal researches by solicitor) and E1 (Researching and preparation for hearing by solicitors) as claimed by the Respondents are excessive and therefore have to be reduced.  I make no reductions in respect of other items listed on the Statement of Costs. 

4.In my assessment, a reasonable sum of costs for the Respondents would be $115,000 and this is the amount I allow.

(Alex Lee)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Jenkin Suen and Ms Tinny Chan, instructed by Simon C.W. Yung & Co., for the Petitioner

Mr Martin Wong, instructed by Chong & Partners LLP, for the 1st Respondent