Lam Pok (Jimmy) v. Lee Hin Long (Timothy Lee) and Another

HCAL 247/2020
HCMP 1183/2020
(Heard together)

[2021] HKCFI 1355

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 247 OF 2020

______________

_____________

BETWEEN

______________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1183 OF 2020

______________

_____________

BETWEEN

______________

(Heard together)

_____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

_____________________

1.On 25 March 2021, I made a costs order nisi that R1 shall bear the costs of both HCAL 247/2020 and HCMP 1183/2020. 

The Petitioner’s claim

2.The Petitioner seeks a variation.  He seeks a certificate for two counsel. 

3.I have considered the authority cited to me.  Given the point of law involved on the meaning of “consented in writing”, the importance of that point, and the facts of the applications which are not straightforward, I am persuaded that this is an appropriate case for me to grant a certificate for two Counsel.  I so order.

4.I proceed to assess the costs.

5.For HCMP 1183/2020, the Petitioner claims costs in the total amount of HK$525,375.  For HCAL 247/2020, he claims HK$534,000.

6.The two actions overlap in terms of facts and law.  Costs in the total amount of HK$1,059,375 is excessive.

7.Specifically in respect of HCMP 1183/2020, the following items are in particular excessive:

(a) C.1 (15 hours of solicitor’s attendance on client);

(b) C.4 (8 hours of solicitor’s attendance on counsel);

(c) D.2.2 (8 hours of solicitor’s perusal of R1’s affirmation);

(d) D.3 (15 hours of solicitor’s preparation for hearings), particularly when 2 counsel had been instructed.

I also find the total amount of counsel fees of HK$183,500 on the high side. 

8.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$220,000.

9.Specifically in respect of HCAL 247/2020, I find that the following items are in particular excessive:

(a) C.1 (20 hours of solicitor’s attendance on client), and this is on top of item C.1 claimed in HCMP 1183/2020;

(b) C.4 (10 hours of solicitor’s attendance on counsel), and this is on top of item C.4 claimed in HCMP 1183/2020;

(c) D.2.1 (5 hours of solicitor’s perusal of R1’s affirmation), and this is on top of item D.2.2 claimed in HCMP 1183/2020;

(d) D.3 (15 hours of solicitor’s preparation for hearings), and this is on top of item D.3 claimed in HCMP 1183/2020.

I also find the total amount of counsel fees of HK$141,500 on the high side. 

10.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$230,000.

11.In all, I assess the total costs of the Petitioner at HK$450,000.

The claim of the Respondent in HCMP 1183/2020

12.Department of Justice claims HK$125,237.00.  I find the amount reasonable.  I allow it in full.  Those costs shall be paid by R1 also.

R2’s claim

13.R2 claims HK$69,279.00.  I find nearly 10 hours of perusal of document (D2) excessive.  This is particularly so given the fact that R2 has from day one adopted a neutral stance, and that his and his legal representative’s attendance has been excused.  I assess the costs at HK$55,000, to be paid by R1 also.

Written Submissions and Statement of Costs by Matthew Ng & Co, for the Petitioner in HCAL 247/2020 and the Intervener in HCMP 1183/2020

The 1^st Respondent in HCAL 247/2020 and the Applicant in HCMP 1183/2020, in person and made no submission

Statement of Costs submitted by Ms Vivian Kao, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent in HCMP 1183/2020

Statement of Costs submitted by Ms Eva Sze, Senior Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the 2^nd Respondent in HCAL 247/2020