Hui (Annie) Guo v. Yuedong Xu and Others

HCCL 3/2019

[2022] HKCFI 368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMMERCIAL ACTION NO 3 OF 2019

____________________

____________________

________________

DECISION

________________

1.These are very briefly my reasons.

2.As I mentioned earlier, this is going to be a broad-brush assessment. First of all, Mr Sajnani described the skeleton bill as exorbitant. I have to say that having looked at it and having listened to the submissions made, I am inclined to agree.

3.I am helpfully reminded of the fact that on 12 March 2020, this court had dealt with a security for costs application in this action. It was indicated in that Decision that the claim by the 4^th and 5^th Defendants was fairly high, and the claim was reduced by a considerable margin by virtue of that Decision. I need only say a few words about the bill in front of me.

4.First of all, rightly it was pointed out that this bill which amounts to a total of over HK$11 million was preceded by another bill which was of a smaller sum at HK$9.6 million. In the earlier bill, one of the fee earners, the junior associate, stated in the bill was a different person. I have to say that this kind of inconsistency is rather disturbing.

5.Further, and I am merely pointing out the more eye-catching issues, in the earlier bill senior counsel’s refresher was charged at HK$400,000 per day. The absurdity is self-evident, and in the later bill the same item was reduced to HK$120,000 per day. Overall, I find the number of hours estimated for both fee earners far too excessive. There is self-evidently much duplication in the work of two solicitors, and with respect counsel’s fees are very high. It must not be assumed, as Mr Ng has accepted, that counsel’s fees are automatically approved by the court.

6.I think in these rather unusual circumstances the court should be very careful about the amount of security for costs ordered. I take into account the fact that there is already payment of security of HK$1.6 million up to discovery. I find the further payment of HK$5.5 million offered by the Plaintiff realistic and quite reasonable in the circumstances. I shall order accordingly.

Mr Suraj Sajnani of King & Wood Mallesons, for the Plaintiffs

Mr Ng Kian Yang of Miao & Co, for the 4^th and 5^th Defendants