China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd and Others v. Tianrui (International) Holding Co Ltd and Others

HCA 548/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3883

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 548 OF 2019

______________

BETWEEN

______________

Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply to Statement of Objections by the 1^st to 4^th Plaintiffs: 11 October 2021 and 26 November 2021

Date of Statement of Objections by the 1^st, 2^nd and 8^th Defendants: 29 October 2021

Date of Decision on Costs: 30 December 2021

____________________

2^nd DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

1.By my decision handed down on 7 December 2020 (the “Decision”)[1], I dismiss §§4 and 5 of the 14/8/2019 Summons. In respect of the other paragraphs, I dismiss them also as they had not been pursued and had in effect been abandoned. By my Decision on Costs handed down on 13 September 2021[2] (the “Decision on Costs”), I ordered, in respect of the 6/11/2020 Summons, that the costs of and occasioned by the same be borne by the Tianrui Ds on an indemnity basis, and that in respect of the 14/8/2019 Summons, the costs of and occasioned by the same be borne by the Tianrui Ds, 35% of which be on an indemnity basis, and 65% of which be on a party-and-party basis. I further ordered that all the costs of and occasioned by both Summonses be summarily assessed, and payable forthwith

2.Ps have since filed their statement of costs (the “SoC”). The Tianrui Ds have filed their objections (the “Objections”). P have also filed their reply (the “Reply”).

3.Below is my summary assessment of the costs claimed.

The 14/8/2019 Summons

4.I deal with the costs of the 14/8/2019 Summons first.

5.In Part I of the SoC, Ps claim, after apportionment in accordance with the Decision on Costs, the total sum of HK$2,936,500.

6.In the Objections, the Tianrui Ds seek deduction in the total sum of HK$937,140.40:

(a) The Tianrui Ds object to the hourly rates of the fee earners on the basis that they were assisted by 3 Hong Kong counsel and Cayman counsel. I accept in this regard Ps’ reply, that such assistance has nothing to do with the fee earners’ hourly rates;

(b) Objections have further been raised on the basis that the application was legally not complicated, so that it is unreasonable and unnecessary for 2 fee earners to be engaged, that Ps’ solicitors are familiar with the pleaded facts, that the status and details of the Cayman Proceedings are not complicated, and that the amount claimed is excessive;

(c) I do not accept that objections. The application is factually complicated. The amount of documents and evidence is substantial. The Cayman Proceedings are factually and legally complicated, been developing, involved multiple appeals to the Cayman Court of Appeal, and even an application for leave to further appeal to the Privy Council. Just the perusal of the judgments involved would have taken considerable time;

(d) I accept Ps’ reply that the amount of hours suggested by the Tianrui Ds in some sections (e.g. C1, C2 and C3) are simply unrealistic.

7.On the other hand, I am of the view that given the assistance of counsel (Hong Kong and Cayman), the total number of man-hours claimed under Section D (Professional Work) of over 200 hours (in the total amount of HK$1,108,437) is too high.

8.Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the costs of the 14/8/2019 Summons at HK$2,600,000.

The 6/11/2020 Summons

9.In Part II of the SoC, Ps claim HK$431,397.

10.By the Objections, the Tianrui Ds seek deduction in the total sum of HK$183,360:

(a) The Tianrui Ds object to C4 (Attendance on Cayman counsel) of 4.5 hours, which they submit is unreasonably long compared with the corresponding section in Part I;

(b) In their Reply, Ps explain that it took longer because at the material time, the Cayman counsel had left the firm, and various means of communication had to be taken to ascertain the information required. I accept those explanations;

(c) Under D1 (Preparation of documents), the Tianrui Ds object to the amount as being unreasonable, and that it is not clear as to what documents had been prepared;

(d) In their Reply, Ps explain that an affirmation had in fact been prepared to update the Court on the position of the Cayman Proceedings, which would have been filed had the Tianrui Ds not withdrawn the application;

(e) In respect of D2 (Perusal of documents), Ps further explain that various documents provided by the Cayman counsel had to be perused in order to inter alia prepare the affirmation intended to be filed in reply.

11.In my view, the costs claimed is reasonable, which I summarily assess at HK$430,000.

12.I make no further costs order in respect of this summary assessment.

Statement of Costs and Reply to Statement of Objections by Jimmy Lam & Co, for the 1^st to 4^th Plaintiffs

Statement of Objections by Tanner De Witt, for the 1^st, 2^nd and 8^th Defendants