Yjh v. Lkhm

HCMP 631/2017

[2020] HKCFI 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 631 OF 2017

____________

_____________

_____________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

1.By §§157-159 of the decision dated 14 August 2019, this court criticized the late lodging of hearing bundles, the use of running bundles without proper sorting, the ridiculous pagination of documents, the failure to arrange documents in a comprehensible order and the inclusion of useless or illegible documents.

2.This is a hearing for the Mother’s solicitors (Lo & Co) to show cause as to why they should not bear costs on indemnity basis for preparing such bundles and the wastage of hearing time.

3.The sole proprietor of Lo & Co has filed an affirmation to show cause.  In summary, she explained that the preparation of hearing bundles was made difficult due to delay of the Father in filing his affirmation by over 5 weeks.  It had a knock-on effect in causing the Mother to delay in filing her affirmation in reply and her legal opinion, and in preparing the hearing bundles. 

4.Whilst acknowledging that the duty fell on her firm, acting for the applicant, to prepare hearing bundles in accordance with Practice Direction 5.4, she said that there was a huge burden on her small firm to perform all the duties within a tight timeframe.  The firm offered its sincere apology for the unsatisfactory preparation of the bundles which hindered the Court’s judgment writing.  The firm has promised to improve its supervision over its staff and ensure that bundles would comply with the Practice Direction in future.  The firm estimated that the costs wasted were in the region of $24,650.

5.Withers, solicitors for the Father, has filed an affirmation which took no issue on the delay that the Father occasioned and invited the Court not to make any wasted costs order against both firms.

6.The firm has written to the Mother informing her of the estimated costs (then estimated at $38,000).  The Mother has written to the Court confirming that she would not claim any costs against the firm as she considered that the firm had tried its best in presenting her case.

7.Given the stance of Withers and the Mother, it is not necessary to investigate this matter further.  I make no order for wasted costs against Lo & Co.

8.I take this opportunity to remind practitioners that the preparation of hearing bundles in compliance with Practice Direction 5.4 could be done in advance without waiting for the full filing of documents. A draft index could be provided to the opponent for comment.  It can divide documents into eg Bundle A for pleadings, order and summonses, Bundle B for affirmations, Bundle C for exhibits, Bundle D for expert and other reports, with each Bundle starting from page 1.  The bundles can be updated as the filing progresses.  It will avoid the appalling pagination in the present case.

9.I thank Ms Karen Wong for her assistance.

Ms Karen Wong, instructed by Lo & Co, for the defendant

Attendance of the plaintiff represented by Withers was excused