Gmedia Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. and Another v. Tencent Holdings Ltd and Others

HCIP 51/2019

[2022] HKCFI 601

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 51 OF 2019

(transferred from HCA 495 of 2017 pursuant to the Order

of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lok dated 6 September 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before:  Hon Lok J in Chambers

Date of Statement of Costs:  2 February 2021

Date of List of Objections:  23 February 2021

Date of Statement of Reply:  9 March 2021

Date of Summary Assessment of Costs:  25 February 2022

________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

________________________

1.This is the summary assessment of costs pursuant to the consent order made by me on 12 January 2021 (“the Order”), which is related to the summons taken out by the Defendants dated 17 March 2020 applying for security for costs. Under the Order:

(i)  the Plaintiffs have to provide security for the Defendants’ costs of this action (up to discovery and interrogatories)  in the sum of HK$2.9 million by way of payment into court on or before 25 February 2021; and

(ii)  the Plaintiffs have to pay the Defendants costs of and incidental to the application to be summarily assessed.

2.The Defendants filed a Statement of Costs claiming the sum of $1,355,870, comprising manual work in the sum of $900 (Section B), communication work in the sum of $381,320 (Section C), professional work in the sum of $281,350 (Section D), counsel’s fees in the sum of $672,500 (Section E)  and other disbursements in the sum of $19,800 (Section F).

3.It is trite that the court will adopt a broad-brush approach in the summary assessment procedure and will not embark on a mini-taxation.

4.For an application of this nature, I find that the fees claimed for communication work and professional work are excessive, and I will reduce the total sum by about one third to $440,000 for Sections C and D.

5.For counsel’s fees, I take the point that brief should have already been delivered to counsel when the Plaintiffs made the offer to pay security in December 2020.  However, I do not find that application of this nature warrants the engagement of 2 counsel.  Though this case may involve specialized knowledge on IP law and merits of claim may carry some weight in the application, the principles relating to security for costs application are distinct, relatively straight-forward and well-established.

6.In Section E, the Defendants are claiming for counsel’s fees of Mr John Yan, SC and Mr Philips B F Wong.  Considering the complexity of the application, I only allow the Defendants to claim for the counsel’s fees of Mr Wong in the sum of $225,000.

7.Taking into account that some costs should be allowed in Sections B and F, I round up the figure to $680,000.  I therefore so assess the Defendants’ costs.

Deacons, for the Plaintiffs

Bird & Bird, for the Defendants