Apital Wealth Holdings Ltd and Others v. 南通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 66/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 21 April 2021 before Hon K Yeung J in Chambers.
Costs — Arbitration — Interim Injunction discharge — Summary assessment of costs — Excessive and unparticularized Mainland costs — One-day hearing — Duplication and excessive fees identified. The court discharged part of the interim injunction and made a costs order nisi in favour of the Defendant for the summons and variation summons to be assessed summarily. The Defendant claimed over HK$4 million and RMB1.98 million costs, which the Plaintiffs objected to as excessive and containing duplication. The court found the claimed amount unreasonably high, noting duplication in fee items, excessive perusal and preparation fees, and unparticularized exorbitant fees for Mainland support and experts. Applying a broad brush approach, the court reduced the costs to HK$2,000,000 and RMB400,000. No further costs order was made regarding the summary assessment itself. The Defendant must pay the assessed costs within 28 days.
Legal issues: Summary assessment of costs
Outcome: Costs claim by Defendant significantly reduced and summarily assessed
Cited by 3 cases
|
HCCT 66/2020 [2021] HKCFI 1048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 66 OF 2020 ______________
_____________
_____________
____________________ DECISION ON COSTS ____________________ 1.By my Decision handed down on 4 February 2021, I discharged the part of the Interim Injunction at §§1(b) to (d) of the 19 Oct Order. I made a costs order nisi that D shall have the costs of the Summons and Ps’ Variation Summons, with certificate for 2 counsel, to be assessed summarily. 2.On 26 February 2021, D filed its Statement of Costs. It claims costs in the total amount of HK$4,007,380 and RMB1,980,433. 3.On 12 March 2021, Ps lodged their Statement of Objection. They do not object to summary assessment. They raise various objections on the amount claimed. 4.On 19 March 2021, D filed its reply. 5.By any standard, the amount claimed is unreasonably high for a one‑day substantive hearing for discharge. I do not accept D’s submission in reply that this is an exceptional case which justifies or explains the high costs. 6.On quantum, I agree with Ps’ objections and am of the view that there are duplications under C1, D1 and D2, that C2 and D4 are excessive, and that C3 (“Attendance on Counsel” in the sum of HK$135,400), D2 (“Perusal of Documents” by 5 fee earners for HK$446,400) and D3 (“Preparation for hearing” by 5 fee earners for HK$139,800) grossly excessive. I also agree that the total counsel fees for both hearings are excessive, bearing in mind the overlap between the two. 7.In relation to the fees incurred in the Mainland, I agree that the un‑particularized total amount of RMB992,808 for “providing support on liaison” excessive. I also agree that the fees charged by the Mainland experts un‑particularized and excessive. The total sum of RMB1,980,433 is excessive. 8.Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assessed the costs at HK$2,000,000 and RMB400,000. I make no order as to costs in respect of the summary assessment. 9.The total costs so assessed shall be paid within 28 days from the date hereof.
Submission of Statement of Objection by DLA Piper Hong Kong, for the 1st to 6th Plaintiffs Submission of Statement of Costs and Reply to Statement of Objection by Baker & McKenzie, for the Defendant | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 66/2020