Taiping Securities (HK) Co Ltd v. King Fai Chi also known as King Pak Fu

HCA 1334/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1334 OF 2019

______________

______________

Before:  Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Statement of Costs by the Plaintiff:  27 September 2021

Date of List of Objections by the 2^nd Defendant:  11 October 2021

Date of Decision on Costs: 20 October 2021

____________________

DECISION

ON COSTS

____________________

1.I refer to my Decision of 13 August 2021 and the costs order nisi made in §69 thereof.

2.Pursuant to the directions I subsequently gave, P lodged its Statement of Costs dated 27 September 2021 for Summary assessment.  It claims costs in the total sum of HK$1,685,914.50.

3.On 11 October 2021, D2 lodged his List of Objections.

4.D2 in his List of Objections highlights a number of general matters, which include the following:

(a)  I made no order as to costs in respect of the Summons.  That is relevant to the costs of the preparation of the Xie/Aff;

(b)  P replaced its solicitors before the filing of the appeal; and

(c)  The costs claimed involve fees for 4 counsel in total (2 senior counsel and 2 junior counsel).

5.Those general objections are legitimate, which I note.

6.In my view, for an appeal in effect against an order dispensing with service, the amount of the claimed costs is grossly excessive by any standard.

7.In respect of Section C (Communications Including Conferences, Telephone Calls and Letters), upwards of 84 person‑hours by multiple fee earners in the total sum of HK$348,370 are claimed.  They include communications with 4 counsel.  No particular has been given as to whether any of those communications concern the Summons.  There are also duplications. They are excessive.  Adopting a broad‑brush approach, I allow only HK$120,000.

8.In respect of Section D (Professional Work), some 180 person‑hours in the total sum of HK$690,958 are being claimed.  They are excessive.  Again, no particular has been given as to whether any of the work concern the Summons.  Adopting a broad‑brush approach, I allow only HK$150,000.

9.In respect of Section E, fees for 4 counsel are being claimed.  No explanation has been given as to why that is so.  I disallow E1 and E2.  In respect of the fees of Mr Maurellet and Ms Pang, their fees include the settlement of the Summons and Xie/Aff, in respect of which I have made no order as to costs.  Whilst it is said that their fees have been “duly apportioned”, no particular as to the percentage of apportionment has been provided.  Adopting a broad‑brush approach, I assess Mr Maurellet’s fees at HK$250,000, and those of Ms Pang at HK$50,000.

10.In total, I summarily assess the costs at HK$575,000.

11.I otherwise make no further costs order in respect of the summary assessment.

Statement of Costs submitted by Deacons, for the Plaintiff

List of Objections submitted by Gall, for the 2^nd Defendant