Bluesun Capital Ltd v. Tewoo Group Finance No 3 Ltd and Others

HCA 1428/2020

[2021] HKCFI 3377

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1428 OF 2020

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Mr Recorder Manzoni, SC in Chambers

Date of Statement of Costs of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants:  21 July 2021

Date of List of Objections of the Plaintiff:  6 October 2021

Date of Costs Decision:  12 November 2021

________________________

COSTS DECISION

________________________

1.By a decision dated 30 September 2021 I made a final costs order for a summary assessment of the Defendants’ costs on an indemnity basis. The Defendants’ costs were set out in a Statement of Costs for Summary Assessment dated 21 July 2021. The claimed costs amounted to HK$576,705.

2.The Plaintiff objected to various of the Defendants’ costs in its list of objections dated 6 October 2021.  If the Plaintiff’s objections were accepted in full, the Defendants’ costs would be taxed down to HK$243,275.

3.The appropriate test for costs being assessed on an indemnity basis is:

“All costs are to be allowed except those unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount, the receiving party being given the benefit of any doubt” (See white book Order 62/App/11 at page 1352 of the 2021 edition).

4.The objections raised are generally a criticism of the time spent on each of the various tasks, or a suggestion that a different counsel ought to have been instructed.  Having considered each of the objections in turn, and having regard to the appropriate test as identified above, I do not consider that any of the objections justify a reduction in the amount claimed.  On a summary assessment it is not possible for a court to make any detailed assessment as to whether, for example, a particular task should have taken 4 hours as claimed, or 2 hours as suggested by the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff has not been able to identify any particular yardstick against which it can demonstrate that the amounts claimed, or indeed any individual amounts, are unreasonable.  Instead, it simply offers an opinion that the amounts claimed are unreasonable.  That is insufficient, as the Plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that the amounts claimed are unreasonable.

5.There is no suggestion that any of the tasks undertaken ought not to have been undertaken, and other than the mere opinion offered by the Plaintiff there is no evidence by which the Court can legitimately reduce the costs claimed.  Having regard to the nature of the matter as a whole, I do not think that the overall level of costs is unreasonable, and in the circumstances I assess, on an indemnity basis, the Defendants’ costs in the sum of HK$576,705.

Messrs Kwok Yih & Chan, for the plaintiff

Messrs W K To & Co, for the 1^st and 2^nd defendants