Chow Steel Industries Public Co Ltd and Others v. Ko Sung and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 2711/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 16 July 2021.

1. For background, I refer to my Decision handed down on 27 April 2021 allowing D2’s application to adduce additional evidence butrefusing his application for leave to appeal against the Costs Order Nisi made on 26 March 2021.

Cited by 4 cases

Case No.HCMP 2711/2017[2021] HKCFI 2108
Court
High Court CFI
Date16 Jul 2021
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 2711/2017

[2021] HKCFI 2108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2711 OF 2017

______________

BETWEEN    
  CHOW STEEL INDUSTRIES PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED 1st Plaintiff
  CHOW ENERGY PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED 2nd Plaintiff
  PREMIER SOLUTION COMPANY LIMITED 3rd Plaintiff

and

  KO SUNG 1st Defendant
  WONG SHUN CHEUNG 2nd Defendant
  PREMIER SOLUTIONS 3rd Defendant
  CONSULTANCY LIMITED  

______________

Before:  Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply Submissions by the 1st to 3rd Plaintiffs:  11 and 21 May 2021

Date of List of Objections by the 2nd Defendant:  18 May 2021

Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply Submissions by the 2nd Defendant:  11 and 24 May 2021

Date of List of Objections by the 1st to 3rd Plaintiffs:  18 May 2021

Date of Decision on Costs:  16 July 2021

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

1.For background, I refer to my Decision handed down on 27 April 2021 allowing D2’s application to adduce additional evidence butrefusing his application for leave to appeal against the Costs Order Nisi made on 26 March 2021.

2.In relation to D2’s Statement of Costs for his application to adduce new evidence:

(a)  I have taken into account D2’s submissions in respect of the un‑cooperative attitude of Ps;

(b)  However, the claimed costs of HK$159,010 for an application of such nature is in my view grossly excessive.  C1 (HK$20,200 for total of 5.5 hours on “Communication including conferences, telephone calls and letters”) and D1 (HK$109,000 for total of 30 hours of “Professional Work” by 2 fee earners) particularly so;

(c)  Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$40,000.

3.In relation to Ps’ Statement of Costs for D2’s application for leave to appeal:

(a)  I agree that the involvement of 3 fee earners create duplication of work;

(b)  I agree that C2 (“Preparation for the 24 Nov Hearing and attendance thereat”) primarily related to D2’s application for leave to adduce additional evidence;

(c)  Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$60,000.

4.I make no costs order in respect of this assessment.

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

Submissions by Fangda Partners, for the 1st to 3rd Plaintiffs

Submissions by ONC Lawyers, for the 2nd Defendant