Dp Properties Ltd v. E Cube (Tsuen Wan) Ltd (Formerly Known As Play House (Tsuen Wan) Ltd) and Another

HCA 2003/2017

[2020] HKCFI 1567

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2003 of 2017

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Mr Recorder Manzoni SC in Chambers

Date of Decision on Costs:  15 July 2020

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.On 18 June 2020 I handed down a decision in this matter in which I made a costs order nisi that the defendants should pay the plaintiff’s costs to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two Counsel. The plaintiff has applied for an order that its costs be summarily assessed pursuant to RHC Order 62 rule 9 A. It has provided a schedule of costs in the total sum of HK$995,015.00.

2.The defendants object to the challenge made to the costs order nisi by the plaintiff.  They say that the costs should be taxed rather than dealt with summarily because they are substantial, they are disproportionate to the substantive claims made and the defendants had attempted to minimise the plaintiff’s costs by making offers on a without prejudice save as to costs basis on 12 September 2019 and 30 December 2019 in an attempt to compromise the applications.  In addition, to the extent that I am minded to proceed with a summary assessment, the defendants have made various submissions as to the quantum of the plaintiff’s claimed costs.  Without descending to the detail of those submissions they include submissions to the effect that various of the costs have already been claimed and paid (and therefore cannot be claimed again), some costs have been caused by the General Adjourned Period, and therefore should not be visited upon the defendants, and various detailed propositions concerning hourly rates and the amount of time spent on various aspects of the hearing.

3.I decline to order a taxation as the defendants wish.  In my view where a summary assessment is possible it should be undertaken because that reduces both the cost of litigation to the parties and the burden on the court resources.  I recognise that there is an element of disproportionality between the costs claimed and the substantive amounts claimed in the action, but that disproportionality reinforces the need for all cost saving measures to be undertaken so far as possible.  Summary assessment is one of those measures and therefore I consider it to be appropriate that I should proceed with a summary assessment of the costs.

4.In my view the without prejudice save as to costs letters are not relevant to the decision I have to make.  They may have been relevant had the defendants chosen to contend for a different costs order, but they have not done so.  I do not consider that those offers can be utilised in order to reduce the quantum of the costs which I have ordered to be paid, as opposed to the principle is to whether they should be paid or not.  Therefore I disregard these letters for the purposes of this decision.

5.As to the detailed submissions that have been made concerning quantum, I accept that it appears that the plaintiff is claiming costs which have already been the subject of a summary assessment of costs, and paid by the plaintiff.  It is clearly inappropriate that they should be claimed again.  I deduct that amount (HK$25,360) from the starting point.

6.As to the remainder, I generally accept the propositions made by the defendants as to the costs incurred.  Without descending to detail, I summarily assess the plaintiff’s costs in the total sum of HK$600,000.

Deacons for the Plaintiff

Paul K C Chan & Partners, for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants