Americhip Inc v. Zhu Hongling and Others

HCA 1644/2016

[2021] HKCFI 3370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1644 OF 2016

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Mr Recorder Manzoni SC in Chambers

Date of Written Submissions of the 1^st Defendant:  23 July 2021

Date of Written Reply Submissions of the Plaintiff:  21 September 2021

Date of Costs Decision:  12 November 2021

________________________

COSTS DECISION

________________________

1.On 20 July 2021 I handed down a Judgment on an application by the plaintiff for further injunctive relief pending the handing down of a judgment to be delivered following the full trial of the action. I refused the relief sought and I ordered, on a nisi basis, the plaintiff to pay the 1^st defendant’s costs to be taxed if not agreed.

2.The 1^st defendant has sought a variation of that order nisi to the effect that the costs should be summarily assessed rather than taxed.

3.The plaintiff resists that application on various grounds.

3.1.  First, the plaintiff says that since my decision, the trial judge has handed down her judgment, and has given judgment for the plaintiff, with costs.  The plaintiff says that the costs so awarded will exceed the costs to be paid by the plaintiff in relation to this application and so, unless otherwise agreed, there will inevitably be a taxation in which event the two sets of costs can be offset.

3.2.  Secondly the plaintiff says that the costs involved are complex and will require some careful consideration of the position taken before 3 Judges, being the trial judge, Mr Recorder Eugene Fung SC and myself, all on various dates and all relevant to the quantum of costs to be awarded overall in relation to this application.

3.3.  Thirdly, there will be substantial grounds for disputing the quantum of costs claimed by the 1^st defendant.

4.It would normally be my inclination to undertake a summary assessment of costs for such interlocutory matters, as I am of the view that summary assessments are a more efficient way of dealing with costs.  However in this case I do not think that it would be more efficient to do so.  It is obvious that there will be an imminent taxation of costs having regard to the judgment recently handed down. As a result, I take the view that it would likely incur additional resources and costs to undertake a separate summary assessment of only a limited portion of those costs.

5.Given that, absent agreement, the matter will inevitably go before the taxing master, in my view the taxing master will be well placed to assess the costs arising from this application and to make any appropriate set off caused by the order that I have made.  In my view that will be the most efficient way to evaluate the costs of this application.

6.In all the circumstances, I refuse the application to vary my costs order nisi, and I now order that the costs order nisi is made absolute.

Messrs M B Kemp LLP, for the Plaintiff

Messrs Peter Cheung & Co, for the 1^st Defendant