Perpetual Wealth (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Be Solutions Co Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 42/2021 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 25 May 2022 before Hon K Yeung J.
Costs assessment — Security for costs application refused — Plaintiff sought deduction of defendant's claimed costs — Court found plaintiff's proposed deduction too low and defendant's claim too high — Applied broad brush approach to reduce hours and fees claimed for attending client, opposing side, and counsel — Allowed reasonable counsel brief fees for call-over and substantive application — Summarily assessed costs at HK$130,000 in favor of 1st Defendant — No further costs order made.
Legal issues: Summary assessment of costs
Outcome: Costs summarily assessed in favor of the 1st Defendant at HK$130,000; no further costs orders made.
Cites 2 cases
|
HCCT 42/2021 [2022] HKCFI 1527 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 42 OF 2021 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply by the 1st Defendant: 8 and 28 April 2022 Date of Statement of Objections by the Plaintiff: 22 April 2022 Date of Decision on Costs: 25 May 2022 ________________________ DECISION ________________________ 1.By my decision handed down on 28 March 2022[1], I refused P’s application for security for costs against D1 as the counterclaiming defendant. I make a costs order nisi that D1 shall have the costs of the application, with certificate for counsel. I also gave directions for summary assessment of those costs. 2.By their Statement of Costs of 8 April 2022, Messrs Keith Lam Lau & Chan (“KLL&C”) on behalf of D1 claim costs in the total amount of HK$163,800. 3.By their Statement of Objections of 22 April 2022, Messrs Stevenson, Wong & Co for P claim that a total of HK$111,902, should be deducted, leaving only the amount of HK$51,898. 4.That net amount of HK$51,898 suggested on behalf of P is in my view unrealistically low. 5.On the other hand, given the nature of the application, which is not complication, I am of the view that the total amount of HK$163,800 claimed by KLL&C on D1’s behalf is unreasonably high. In my view, and adopting a broad brush approach:
6.I hence summarily assess D1’s costs at HK$130,000. 7.I make no further costs order in respect of this summary assessment.
Statement of Objections by Stevenson, Wong & Co, for the Plaintiff Statement of Costs and Reply by Keith Lam Lau & Chan, for the 1st Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 42/2021