Li Ming and Others v. Liu Yiu Keung also known as Stephen Liu and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 86/2018 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 May 2021.

1. By my Decision handed down on 28 October 2020, I, save the underlined words in §§(4) and (5) of the prayer, dismissed the Amended Striking Out Summons. I grant Ps retrospective leave in terms of §§1 and 4 of the Leave Summons. I made a costs order nisi that Ps are to have the costs of the Original Striking Out Summons, the Amendment Summons, and 90% of the costs of the Amended Striking Out Summons, to be summarily assessed, with certificate for 2 counsel. I ordered also on a nisi basis that t

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 86/2018[2021] HKCFI 1307
Court
High Court CFI
Date11 May 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 86/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1307

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 86 OF 2018

______________

BETWEEN    
  LI MING (李明) 1st Plaintiff
  WU RANTAO (吳然濤) 2nd Plaintiff
  ZHAO DONGWEI (趙東偉) 3rd Plaintiff
  ZHANG XIN (張信) 4th Plaintiff
  ZHOU LI (周立) 5th Plaintiff

and

  LIU YIU KEUNG (廖耀強)
also known as STEPHEN LIU
1st Defendant
  DAVID YEN CHING WAI (閻正為) 2nd Defendant

______________

Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Statement on Costs by the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs: 9 November 2020

Dates of Reply Submissions on Costs by the 1st to 2nd Defendants:  5 and 28 January 2021

Date of Reply Submissions on Costs by the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs: 12 January 2021

Date of Decision on Costs:  11 May 2021

_____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

_____________________

1.By my Decision handed down on 28 October 2020, I, save the underlined words in §§(4) and (5) of the prayer, dismissed the Amended Striking Out Summons. I grant Ps retrospective leave in terms of §§1 and 4 of the Leave Summons. I made a costs order nisi that Ps are to have the costs of the Original Striking Out Summons, the Amendment Summons, and 90% of the costs of the Amended Striking Out Summons, to be summarily assessed, with certificate for 2 counsel. I ordered also on a nisi basis that the costs of the Leave Summons be in the cause.

2.On 9 November 2020, Stephenson Harwood (“SH”) filed on Ps’ behalf their Statement of Costs.  HK$1,415,855 is claimed.  On 5 January 2021, Dentons on Ds’ behalf filed their objections.  On 12 January 2021, SH filed their reply (the “SH Reply”).  Certain reductions were accepted.  On 28 January 2021, Dentons wrote in and pointed out certain errors in the SH Reply.  Having taken into account those errors, the accepted reductions are in the total amount of about HK$62,000.

3.I accepted Dentons’ objections that the hourly rates of two of the fee earners are higher than those published by the Law Society.  I accept that there has been some multiplicity of fee earners.  I accept further their objections that given the change of counsel, there must have been some duplications of work.  I accept also that it was not necessary for multiple fee earners to prepare for and attend the hearings given the engagement of leading counsel.

4.I have on the other hand considered the amount at stake and the complexity of the issues.

5.Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the total recoverable costs at HK$1,000,000 (HK$300,000 under Part 1, HK$400,000 under Part 2, and HK$300,000 under Part 3).  I otherwise make no addition costs order in respect of the summary assessment.

6.I order that the costs as summarily assessed above be paid within 28 days from the date hereof.

(Keith Yeung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Statement on Costs and Reply Submissions on Costs by Stephenson Harwood, for the 1st to 5th Plaintiff

Reply Submissions on Costs by Dentons Hong Kong LLP, for the 1st to 2nd Defendants