Huang Qingzhan v. China Ding Yi Feng Holdings Ltd

CACV 103/2020

[2021] HKCA 1724

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1102 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

The Court:

1.By a judgment dated 11 October 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1492), we dismissed the defendant’s application for stay pending appeal with costs to be summarily assessed on paper.  The parties have since filed the statement of costs and statement of objection, which we have duly considered.

2.The plaintiff was at all material times acting in person for the purpose of opposing the stay application.  By a notice to act dated 29 June 2021, Siu & Company (“S&C”)  now acts for the plaintiff in the appeal.  The plaintiff’s statement of costs was filed by S&C.  It includes items of work done by a solicitor and a legal assistant, claiming a total of HK$136,350.00.

3.The plaintiff’s statement of costs is objectionable.  As said, the plaintiff was acting in person (through a Ms Jenny Lin)  for the stay application before us.  We fail to see why S&C did not file a notice to act for the plaintiff if in fact it had all along acted for the plaintiff in the stay application.  As a matter of principle, it is highly questionable if the plaintiff can in such circumstances recover costs said to have been paid to solicitors.  Further, by the time when S&C filed the notice to act in June 2021, the parties had already lodged with the court all the papers necessary for disposing of the stay application. There is nothing in the statement of costs, which did not give the date of the various items of work, to show that S&C had done any work for the stay application after it came on record in June 2021.  In the circumstances, we cannot see any basis for allowing the plaintiff to recover any costs said to have been paid to S&C for the stay application.

4.Accordingly, we will assess the plaintiff’s costs on the basis that he acted in person in the stay application, and taking the matter in the round, allow it at HK$5,000.

5.For completeness, we also would point out that the hourly rates claimed by the two fee earners of S&C (HK$7,000 for the solicitor and HK$2,500 for the legal assistant)  are well in excess of the hourly rates usually allowed on a party and party taxation (being HK$5,800 and HK$1,300 respectively), and the time claimed is also wholly excessive.

Siu & Company, for the plaintiff

Lau, Horton & Wise LLP, for the defendant