Grupo Pacifica Incorporada v. Worldwide Marine Product Ltd

HCA 2640/2014

[2020] HKCFI 1488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2640 OF 2014

____________

BETWEEN

____________

___________________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

___________________________________________

1.On 11 December 2019 the plaintiff in this matter issued a summons seeking a “wasted costs” order against the solicitors who had acted for the 1^st Defendant in the trial of this matter (“the Solicitors”).

2.I heard and determined that application on 15 May 2020.  I dismissed the application, and awarded costs on an indemnity basis to the Solicitors.  I directed further that the costs be assessed summarily, following an exchange of submissions by the parties.

3.The costs claim made by the Solicitors amounts to $1,311,330.20.  Reductions to the claimed costs totalling $941,510.20 (over 70%) are proposed on behalf of the plaintiff.  In large measure the basis for the proposed reductions is that the time incurred on behalf of the Solicitors was “excessive” having regard to the scope and nature of the application.  The plaintiff has approached the summary assessment somewhat akin to a taxation rather than by seeking to identify items unreasonably incurred.

4.In addition, it is suggested by the plaintiff that there has been duplication of work as between (senior) counsel briefed to advise on the application, and (junior) counsel briefed to appear at the hearing.

5.My view, as previously expressed, was that the application had no merits, and that this ought to have been readily apparent. I agree that there is some merit in the submission that certain items of costs, in particular the perusal and preparation of documents appear unreasonably high in amount, and have reviewed the claim accordingly. 

6.The order was made on an indemnity basis however, and the Solicitors are entitled to be reimbursed for all of their costs except to the extent that these are unreasonable.  The benefit of any doubt as to whether an item is unreasonable is to be given to the receiving party.  Having considered the costs on that footing, my assessment of the Solicitors’ entitlement, and the plaintiff’s liability, is in the sum of HK$1,100,000.00.  There is to be an order accordingly.

Ms Athena Wong, instructed by Payne Clermont Velasco, for the plaintiff

Mr Vincent Lung, instructed by Mayer Brown, for Messrs. CC Partners