Wong Wai Wing v. 孟凡蓮

HCMP 1498/2016

[2020] HKCFI 210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1498 OF 2016

______________

______________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Allan Leung in Chambers

Date of Defendant’s Statement of Costs:  16 December 2019

Date of Plaintiff’s Statement of Objection:  23 December 2019

Date of Decision on Summary Assessment of Costs:  17 January 2020

______________________

DECISION ON SUMMARY

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

______________________

Introduction

1.On 5 December 2019, I handed down a decision in which, inter alia, I made a costs order nisi in favour of the defendant and granted her leave to provide a statement of costs for summary assessment, with leave to the plaintiff to serve his objections to the same, and that the summary assessment shall be by paper disposal (unless otherwise directed) (“Decision”).

2.Unless other stated, I shall adopt for the purposes of the summary assessment the abbreviations in the Decision.

3.In my Decision, I dismissed Mr Wong’s Summons and refused to grant him leave to appeal the Costs Order.

The general principles for summary assessment of costs

4.In making a summary assessment, party and party costs were allowed only if they were necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the receiving party.  The court will take a broad-brush approach and consider if the total sum claimed is or appears disproportionate.  If it is not, then all that is required of the court is to be satisfied that each item of costs should be reasonably incurred.  If it is, the court will need to be satisfied that each item is necessary.  In doing so, the court will not embark on a mini-taxation.  It will ensure that the final figure is not disproportionate and/or unreasonable having regard to the nature and circumstances of the application or matter, and the underlying objectives under Order 1A of the Rules of High Court.  Party and party taxation of counsel’s fees was no different from taxation of other costs and disbursements.  The test of “necessary or proper” was applicable (see the summary set out in paras (2)-(4),(9) in the headnote of Court of Appeal’s decision in Poon Shu Fan v Wong Tin Yan & Anor [2012] 6 HKC 428; paragraphs 13 and 14 of Practice Direction 14.3).

Statement of Costs and Objections

5.The total amount claimed by Ms Mang for summary assessment was HK$59,590.

6.Mr Wong has a number of objections.  He objects to the hourly rate charged by Sherman Yan (HK$5,800) and Ng Kit Man (“PKN”) (HK$5,000) who were admitted in 1995 and 2006 respectively.  The hourly rates on party and party taxation approved by the Chief Justice which took effect from 1 January 2018 for solicitors of over 15 years and 9-15 years are HK$5,800 and HK$5,200 respectively. I cannot see, therefore, why the hourly rates claimed are unreasonable.

7.Mr Wong challenges the 2 hours incurred by PKN and 3 hours by a Trainee Solicitor (“TS”) on attendance on Ms Mang, Mr Wong, counsel and court as excessive and suggests 1 hour each.  I do not consider the time spent disproportionate but taking a broad brush approach I will reduce the time spent by PKN and TS by 0.5 hour each.  I will therefore allow HK$11,750 under item C.

8.Mr Wong takes issue with 0.3 hour spent by TS on drafting documents and suggests 10 minutes for drafting the order only.  This is so petty and borders on absurdity.  He also objects to the 1.5 hour and 3 hours incurred by PKN and TS respectively on perusal of the Summons, the application bundles for paper disposal of the Summons, Court note, Mr Wong’s skeleton submissions for the Summons and the Decision.  I do not consider the time spent disproportionate or unreasonable.

9.Finally, Mr Wong claims the HK$20,000 fee of Ms Mang’s counsel Mr Chow, who was called to the Bar in 2006, is excessive and suggests HK$15,000.  Having considered Mr Chow’s skeleton submissions I do not consider the HK$20,000 fee for a 13 year call[1] counsel excessive.

Summary assessment of Ms Mang’s costs

10.The total amount claimed by Ms Mang was HK$59,590.  For item C (Communications), HK$15,100 was reduced to HK$11,750.  No reduction was made to the other items.  I therefore award HK$56,240.

Written submissions by Tse Yuen Ting Wong, for the plaintiff

Written submissions by ONC Lawyers, for the defendant