Lucy Michaels v. Centaline Property Agency Ltd and Others

CACV 512 /2018

[2020] HKCA 878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 512 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCPI NO 902 OF 2016)

________________________

________________________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

Hon Kwan VP (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court):

1.On 27 August 2020, we handed down our judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Paul Lam, SC on 12 September 2018 striking out her claims in this action. We made an order nisi that the plaintiff is to pay the costs of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd defendants in this appeal. As no summons has been taken out by any party to vary the costs order nisi within 14 days of our judgment, that order has since been made absolute.

2.Pursuant to the directions given in §76 of our judgment, on 7 and 9 September 2020 the defendants have lodged their respective statement of costs of this appeal for summary assessment.  The plaintiff has not lodged any submission to object to any item of costs in the defendants’ statements of costs within 14 days thereafter.

3.We now proceed to assess summarily the amount of reasonable costs that should be paid by the plaintiff.

4.The 1^st defendant claimed total costs of $137,460.  We allow $116,560 to be recovered from the plaintiff as reasonable costs.

5.The 2^nd and 3^rd defendant each claimed $22,685.  We reduce the number of hours (a total of 210.4 hours for both) that should reasonably be spent by them and the amount of photocopying charges.  We allow $10,800 to each of the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants as reasonable costs.

The Plaintiff (Appellant), acting in person

Cheung & Choy, for the 1^st Defendant (1^st Respondent)

The 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants (2^nd and 3^rd Respondents), acting in person