Chau Hung Wan v. Yick Hing Construction Co Ltd and Others

HCA 1597/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3201

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1597 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

(by original action)

________________________

AND BETWEEN

(by counterclaim)

________________________

Before:  Hon K Yeung J in Chambers (Paper disposal)

Date of Statement of Costs and Reply to the Statement of Objections for the Plaintiff (by original action):  13 and 21 September 2021

Date of Statement of Objections for the 2^nd Defendant (by original action):  17 September 2021

________________________

DECISION
ON COSTS

________________________

1.By my Decision handed down on 31 August 2021 (the “Decision”[1]), I dismissed Ds’ costs order only appeal and made at §32 thereof a costs order nisi against them. Statement of Costs, Statement of Objections, and Reply have since been filed. I have considered them. Below is my summary assessment of the costs involved.

2.By his Statement of Costs of 13 September 2021, P claims costs in the total sum of HK$351,400.  Those costs include the costs of and occasioned by both the Security Summons and the Appeal.

3.Divers objections have been raised in D2’s Statement of Objections. They object, inter alia, to the amount of time said to have incurred for a number of items, the seniority of the fee earners involved, and the level of the fee charged by counsel.

4.P in reply maintains that all the items are reasonable.

5.In respect of Section C, I agree that C4 is excessive.  There are also duplications in general.  Applying a broad-brush approach, I assess the costs under Section C at HK$40,000.

6.Upwards of 20 person-hours for perusal of documents and preparation of hearing under Section D are in my view excessive.  It is relevant to note that there was in fact no hearing before the Master on the issue of costs, which was dealt with on the papers.  There are also duplications in general.  Applying a broad-brush approach, I assess the costs under Section D at HK$120,000.

7.I allow counsel’s fee as being reasonable.

8.Overall, and applying a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the total costs at HK$220,000.

9.In respect of this assessment exercise, I make no further order as to costs.

Statement of Costs and Reply to the Statement of Objections by Tung, Ng, Tse & Lam, for the Plaintiff (by original action)

Statement of Objections by Tam, Pun & Yipp, for the 2^nd Defendant (by original action)