Canara Bank v. Excel Triumph Ltd and Another

HCA 1736/2019

[2022] HKCFI 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1736 OF 2019

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

1.By my Decision of 16 December 2021, I dismissed P’s Summons for summary judgment against Ds. I made a costs order nisi that P shall bear the costs of and occasioned by the Summons, with certificate for one counsel only, to be summarily assessed. That order has become absolute in the absence of any application for variation.

2.I have considered Ds’ Statement of Costs (under which D1 claims HK$635,550, and D2 HK$501,250), P’s Objections which object variably on the grounds of excessiveness, gross excessiveness, or unreasonableness, and Ds’ Replies which in general seek to justify the costs claimed variably on the grounds that the time charged reflects the complexity of the matter or that the amount of work is otherwise justified.

3.The Summons is not complicated, whether factually or legally. 

4.In my view:

(a)  D1’s claim for 15 hours of Communication and 76.75 hours of Professional work are both excessive;

(b)  D2’s claim for 14 hours of Communication and 56.75 hours of Professional work are also both excessive; and

(c)  Counsel’s fee in the sum of HK$210,000 (shared by Ds)  is also too high. In my view, HK$140,000 (to be shared by Ds)  would have been a reasonable and appropriate amount.

5.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess D1’s costs at HK$300,000, and D2’s costs at HK$200,000.

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

Statement on Costs and Reply to Plaintiff’s List of Objections by Oldham, Li & Nie, for the 1^st Defendant

Statement on Costs and Reply to Plaintiff’s List of Objections by Tonys Lawyers, for the 2^nd Defendant

List of Objections by ONC Lawyers, for the Plaintiff