Perpetual Wealth (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Be Solutions Co Ltd and Others

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 1^st 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
ON COSTS

________________________

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:

(a)  11.5 hours of attendance on client, the other side and counsel, in the total sum of HK$51,800 is on the high side.  I reduce the total amount to HK$35,000;

(b)  Total professional work for 13 hours in the total sum of HK56,400 is also on the high side.  I reduce the total amount to HK$40,000;

(c)  I allow counsel’s brief fee in the sum of HK$5,000 for the call-over hearing on 12 March 2021, which costs were reserved;

(d)  Counsel’s brief fee in the sum of HK$50,000 for the substantial application, including preparation of the written submissions for paper disposal is reasonable, which I allow.

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 1^st Defendant