|
DCCJ 4454/2017
[2022] HKDC 607
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO 4454 OF 2017
-------------------------------
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
LEUNG WAI CHEUNG |
Plaintiff |
| |
and |
|
| |
OCTEL NETWORKS LTD. |
1st Defendant |
| |
MR. MOHAMMED BAVA DIVAN HASAN |
2nd Defendant |
| |
FLOURISH PROPERTY AGENCY |
Third Party |
| |
(C.I.) LIMITED |
|
-------------------------------
| Before: |
Master Jocelyn Leung in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
16 June 2022 |
| Date of Decision: |
22 June 2022 |
-------------------------------
DECISION
-------------------------------
Taxation Review
Background
1.This is a taxation review made by the Plaintiff/Paying Party (“Mr Leung”).
2.The present case arose from a dispute on whether Mr Leung, a putative landlord, had entered into a concluded tenancy agreement with the 1st and 2nd defendants. There was a third party action between the defendants and the estate agent company. By a Judgment of Deputy District Judge Barbara Wong on 13 May 2020, Mr Leung’s action was dismissed. Among others, she made an order nisi which turned absolute that the costs of this action (and the Third Party Action) including costs reserved (if any) be to the 1st and 2nd defendants against the plaintiff and third party in equal shares, to be taxed if not agreed. This is the costs order in relation to Bill No. 1 in these taxation proceedings.
3.On 14 August 2020, by another order of Deputy District Judge Barbara Wong, the application by the plaintiff for leave to appeal was dismissed. A costs order nisi which also became an absolute one was made that the costs of the application be to the 1st and 2nd defendants, to be taxed on the District Court Scale if not agreed. This is the underpinning order for Bill No. 2.
4.By a letter dated 22 November 2021 from the Law Costs Draftsman (“LCD”) on behalf of the defendants, it was informed that 50% of defendants’ costs claimed under Bill No. 1 payable by the third party had been settled and disposed of by way of Consent Order filed on 22 April 2021. Thus, subject to taxation, Mr Leung is only liable to pay 50% of the defendants’ costs claimed up to item no. 3 of Section C (at page 37) of Bill No. 1 and 100% of the further costs of taxation (ie from item no. 4 of Section C).
5.Bills No. 1 and No. 2 were filed by the defendants. Mr Leung also filed his objections to the bills ie the Plaintiff’s List of Objections to the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ Bill of Costs No. 1 and the Plaintiff’s List of Objections to the 1st and 2nd Defendants’ Bill of Costs No. 2 both dated 6 May 2021.
6.I taxed Bills No. 1 and 2 in a taxation hearing held on 25 November 2021. The Bills of Costs No. 1 and No. 2 were taxed on party and party basis. According to Order 62 rule 28(2) of the Rules of the District Court (“RDC’), taxation on party and party basis shall be allowed all such costs as were necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the party whose costs are being taxed.
The Review
7.By a letter filed 29 November 2022, Mr Leung wrote to apply for review of my decision on 25 November 2021. Among other materials, two tables were annexed to his letter. I deemed “Appendix F-table of reasons for Master to review your assessment against the bill of costs No. 1 (16 pages); pp.23-28” and “Appendix G-table of reasons for Master to review your assessment against the bill of cost No. 2 (4 pages); pp.39-42” as the list(s) of objections filed by the plaintiff under Order 62 rule 33(3) of the Rules of the RDC.
8.By letters dated 3 December 2021, 13 December 2021 and 4 February 2022 respectively, further submissions were made by Mr Leung.
9.By my order dated 23 February 2022, I gave directions to parties for the review hearing and vacated the call over hearing originally fixed to be held on 10 March 2022. The review hearing was adjourned to a substantive hearing on 16 June 2022.
Mr Leung’s Arguments
10.Mr Leung raised the following arguments in support of his review:
Letter filed 29 November 2022 (“1st Letter”)
11.First, Mr Leung mentioned that he did not have enough time and information to support his objections in the taxation hearing as the hearing time was just half day instead of the estimated one day. However, in my view, sufficient time had been given to Mr Leung to make submissions in the taxation hearing. The hearing was finished earlier than expected did not affect Mr Leung’s opportunities to make submissions. Indeed, retrospective leave had already been granted to Mr Leung on 17 May 2021 to file out of time of his list of objections to the Bills of Costs. He had ample time to make his submissions.
12.Secondly, Mr Leung said that he was not a trained LCD and was not able to give an immediate response to the court at the taxation hearing. Conversely, it was Mr Leung’s own decision to act in person rather than engaging a LCD. Furthermore, Mr Leung had made various submissions during the taxation hearing and did not give any impression that he was not adequately addressed to the court. I opine that there was no substance in these complaints.
13.Thirdly, Mr Leung relied on a document “general rules of taxation” at Appendix A and submitted that the rules therein shall be followed. During oral hearing for the review, Mr Leung informed that it was a document he found online. The document appeared to be a document issued by the “IPD HKSAR Trade Marks Registry”. It is not an authority in these taxation proceedings and does not have any binding effect upon the court.
14.Mr Leung highlighted a number of rules in that document. Without prejudice to the facts that the document of “general rules of taxation” relied by Mr Leung is not authoritative, I shall make observations as follows.
15.Mr Leung elicited from the “general rules of taxation” that (a) work which can be and should have been properly done by a more junior solicitor will only be allowed at his/her rate (p.4). I refer to and follow paragraph 62/App/21 of Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1 where similar principles are recognized that: “As a general rule, on taxations inter partes: (1) Work which can be and should have been properly done by an unqualified person will only be allowed at his rate. (2) Work can be and should have been done by a more junior solicitor will only be allowed at his rate.”
16.Mr Leung stated from the “general rules of taxation” that (b) solicitors are expected to be conversant with the general law, practice and procedure. No costs for doing research on these areas will be allowed (p.5). I refer to the principle of identical wordings in paragraph 62/App/21 of Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1 and shall follow the same.
17.Mr Leung mentioned that according to the “general rules of taxation”, (c) it is necessary to ensure that there will be no considerable duplication of work (p.4). I shall also refer to paragraph 62/App/21 of Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1 and follow that only one fee earner will be allowed for a particular item of work. I directed myself to the possibilities of duplication of work.
18.Mr Leung also stated from the “general rules of taxation” that (d) only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed (p.5). However, I have difficulties in finding a similar rule from the authorities. I shall not accept this contention as a matter of rules and shall consider to allow the costs of communications based on the principle of necessity and propriety.
19.Mr Leung also raised in point (e) and (g) that drafting of simple form by a solicitor will not be allowed (p.5). However, it is unclear to me what “simple form” means. I shall therefore consider the nature of the drafting work on a case to case basis in determining the appropriate quantum.
20.Mr Leung argued that according to the “general rules of taxation”, (f) retention agreement and receipt for the solicitor fee should be produced to prove the defendants has [reasonable] paid solicitor fee (see exact wordings at bullet point that “receipt for counsel fees should be produced” at p.5). Mr Leung’s contention was not supported by his own documents.
21.With the clarifications above, I shall turn to the specific grounds stated in the 1st Letter.
Paras. 1, 2 and 5 at P.2
22.Mr Leung first relied on point (f) above and argued that the receiving party has failed to provide with the paying party any receipt of the solicitors’ fee (and retention agreement) despite requests were made many times. Mr Leung questioned that no objective and/or factual justification of the receiving party’s solicitor’s costs was provided. He also relied on his understanding of the “trade practice” that “down payment” shall be provided when the solicitors are engaged and regular payment shall be made subsequently. He contended that receipt shall be provided or the Receiving Party failed to provide justification for the claim. Same point had been made by Mr Leung in the taxation hearing.
23.As a matter of general principle, it is for the receiving party to satisfy the taxing master of his entitlement to the cost claimed by placing before the taxing master whatever evidence he wants to adduce for such purpose. If he fails to do so, the taxing master will not allow the sum(s) claimed. Thus, the taxation process ordinarily requires the receiving party to lodge the bundle of taxation documents with the court in support of the taxation bill.
24.Under Order 62 rule 14(d), a taxing master may, in discharge of his functions with respect to the taxation of costs-… (d) direct the production of any document which may be relevant in connection with those proceedings.
25.It is trite that the power of the taxing master to order the production of documents under Order 62 rule 14(d) is limited to documents that are relevant in connection with the proceedings for the taxation of costs and not in relation to any other question. Unless the paying party raises a real and relevant issue or dispute pertaining to the taxation of cost, the taxing master ought not order the receiving party to make discovery in taxation proceedings.
26.I therefore have to consider whether I have to direct the production of the receipt of the solicitors’ fee and the retainer (ie the retention agreement Mr Leung referred to) under Order 62 rule 14(d).
27.It appears to me that Mr Leung contends that in lacking of the receipt and retainer, no objective and/or factual justification of the receiving party’s solicitors’ costs was provided. However, the justification of the individual items of the Bills No. 1 and 2 has to be considered on an item by item basis with reference to the documents in the taxation bundles. In the present case, 5 taxation bundles had been lodged for the taxation hearing and used in this review hearing again. I could and shall refer to the documents therein and consider the items in the Bill of Costs one by one in determining the appropriate sum to be allowed.
28.Further, apart from Mr Leung’s submissions, there was no substance or evidence which showed that the legal services were not provided and not be charged by the Solicitors for the Receiving Party. It is also noted that the Solicitors for the Receiving Party had already certified that the amount claimed in the Bills of Costs No. 1 and No. 2 does not exceed the 1st and 2nd defendants’ liability for costs to them in respect of the action in pursuant to paragraph 17(7) of Practice Direction 14.3 on costs.
29.I am not satisfied that there is any real and relevant issue or dispute herein to justify a production of the receipt and retainer under Order 62 rule 14(d).
Paragraph 3 at P.2
30.Mr Leung then relied on the decision in the Court of Appeal when dealing with his application for leave to appeal against the refusal of the Court of Appeal for granting leave to appeal in CAMP145/2020 (unreported, 12 July 2021) (“the CA Decision”). It was stated at paragraph 16 of the CA Decision that the costs claimed by the Receiving Party are plainly excessive in light of the straightforward nature of the case. There are no justifications for charging all the works again in perusing all the documents relating to the earlier application. Mr Leung argued that “it proved that the Receiving Party are making excessive claims basing on their own record without justification and objective proof.” It is unfortunate that Mr Leung has taken paragraph 16 of the CA Decision out of the context. Paragraph 16 was a paragraph which only concerned the costs of application for leave to appeal against the refusal. The wordings “straightforward nature of the case” were a misquote by Mr Leung which should be “of this application” instead. Mr Leung’s reliance on the CA Decision could not further his position in this review hearing.
Paragraph 4 at P.2
31.Mr Leung also contended that most of the Receiving Party’s claimed court attendance time was found out to be incorrect and was excessive when checked with the court record. He argued that the Receiving Party could make excessive claim based on their own record and information. The court attendance time claimed in the Bills of Costs No. 1 and 2 had been counter-checked with the court record during the taxation hearing and be allowed according to the actual time.
Paragraph 6 at P. 3
32.Mr Leung relied on his phone record in Appendix C to the 1st Letter and contended that the mediation session started at 10:30 am and finished early at about 12:30 pm. The actual time spent shall be 2 hours instead of the claimed and allowed time of 4 hours (Objection 96 and Bill No. 1 Item 96(b)). Since the Receiving Party was not able to support contemporaneous documents to support the claim of 4 hours. I therefore review Bill No. 1 Item 96(b) to 2 hours be allowed (see Table annexed).
Paragraph 7 at P.3
33.Mr Leung referred to the Amended Defence filed on 2 October 2018 and Amended Third Party Statement of Claim filed on 11 September 2018 and submitted that the Solicitor for the Receiving Party had made mistakes in their pleadings and required amendments to be made. He also said that the document “would be likely done by trainee or legal clerk”. Apart from those individual items indicated in the Table annexed which I have considered one by one, Mr Leung did not refer to specific items in this paragraph. Indeed, the amendments to the Defence and the Third Party Statement of Claim were matters concerning the disputes between the Receiving Party (namely the 1st and 2nd Defendants) and the Third Party. The order for leave to amend the Defence was made by Master S.P. Yip on 27 September 2018 in which no order as to costs was made between Mr Leung and the Receiving Party. In respect of the amendment to the Third Party Statement of Claim, it was an order made by Master S.P. Yip on 10 September 2018 pursuant to a consent summons only between the Receiving Party and the Third Party.
Paragraph 8 at P.3
34.Mr Leung questioned that the Receiving Party has claimed a lot of communication time between the client and the solicitor and adopted an hourly rate of senior solicitor for preparation of documents. The claim was excessive and “untrue and with reference to the quality of their prepared document described in above item”. Mr Leung’s allegation of the claims being “untrue” was speculative and without substantive proof. I shall deal with Mr Leung points here when specific items in the Table annexed are considered.
Letter dated 3 December 2021
Paragraphs 1, 2 at P.1 and Paragraph 3 at P.2
35.Mr Leung relied on paragraph 3 of page 2 of the Guide to General Civil Proceedings in High Court and District Court and contended that the maximum costs will be either actual loss or 2/3 of the amount if the work were carried out and charged by his solicitors. The Receiving Party has failed to provide any proof of his actual loss with receipt and retention agreement. Hence, he only needs to pay not more than 2/3 of the final assessed amount claimed by the Receiving Party.
36.Mr Leung’s contention was a misread of the relevant paragraph. The relevant paragraph was basically repeating Order 62 rule 28A (2) and (3) of the RDC concerning costs of litigant in person. Order 62 rule 28A(2) and (3) provides that “(2) the amount allowed in respect of any item shall be such sum as the taxing master thinks fit not exceeding, except in the case of a disbursement, two thirds of the sum which in the opinion of the taxing master would have been allowed in respect of that item if the litigant had been represented by a solicitor” and “(3) where in the opinion of the taxing master the litigant has not suffered any pecuniary loss in doing any work to which the costs relate, he shall not be allowed in respect of the time reasonably spent by him on the work more than $200 an hour.” It applies to the assessment of costs claimed by a litigant in person instead of discounting the whole assessed claim two thirds off when the paying party is a litigant in person.
37.Mr Leung also intended to lend support from the said paragraph for the provision of receipt and retention agreement. The said paragraph and Order 62 rule 28A does not concern the provision of documents and his contention is rejected for the same reasons above.
Paragraph 4 at P.2
38.Mr Leung also repeated his allegation of the Receiving Party making “excessive and false claim”. He particularly pointed out the items of court attendance (item 71, 114, 115, 117, 118, 121 of Bill No. 1). As mentioned above, actual time had already been applied in taxing the time claimed.
Paras. 5 and 6 at P.2
39.Mr Leung made a general attack against the Receiving Party for making untrue and excessive claim and alleged that the quality of work did not support the time spent in the communication and consideration of the case by the solicitors. He also made use of the comparison of the taxed costs with the claimed costs to further his points, no specific items were referred to. I repeat the reasons abovementioned.
Paras. 7 and 8 at P. 3
40.Mr Leung argued that the costs of taxation and taxing fee should be taxed off. The court should “make penalty towards the receiving party and his solicitors in making untrue and excessive claim.” Mr Leung also made a calculation of his costs in preparing list of objections and taxation in the amount of HK$94,875 and argued that such amount should be compensated and/or set off by the Receiving Party. He provided the proof of his professional qualifications in support of his calculation (p. 6-8 of the Letter dated 3 December 2021).
41.He also contended at the oral hearing of the review that the LCD of the Receiving Party, with professional knowledge of taxation, should reduce the amount of the Bills No. 1 and 2 before they were submitted to the court. He said that it was unreasonable to him that he had to bear the costs of the LCD.
42.As I understand from the parties (including from the letter of Mr Daniel Au, the LCD of the Receiving Party on 22 November 2021), there was no agreement between the parties prior to the taxation on any of the claimed and objected items. There was no offer made by Mr Leung to settle the claimed costs, not to mention any sanctioned payment. It was mentioned in Mr Au’s letter that no reply was given by Mr Leung even though two schedules of counter proposals to the items in dispute under Bills No. 1 and 2 were provided by the Receiving Party. During the review hearing, Mr Leung submitted that he did reply to the Receiving Party. However, he was vague in informing whether the reply was in written form or orally. He eventually said that the reply was in written form. However, he stated that he was not able to produce any documents since there were too many documents in this case. Despite what was mentioned, it was confirmed by Mr Leung that he did not reach any agreement with the Receiving Party on any of the disputed items. It was because Mr Leung insisted on the production of the proof of payment.
43.It is the duty of the parties to discuss the items of costs objected to and to try to reach an amicable settlement, narrow down the items in dispute and consider making offer pursuant to Order 62A of RDC (see Practice Direction 14.3). I have been reminded myself that Mr Leung is acting in person and he may not have the legal knowledge to follow the procedure in Order 62A of RDC. However, he is at liberty to obtain legal advice and even if he did not seek legal advice on the matter, I could not see any meaningful effort being put forward by him to reach settlement and/or narrow the disputes with the Receiving Party. Should the Receiving Party not proceed with the taxation, no claimed costs could be assessed. Given the above, I reject Mr Leung’s request for taxing off the costs of taxation and setting off the same with his alleged costs even though more than half of the claimed costs of the Receiving Party has been taxed off during taxation as calculated by Mr Leung at paragraph 6 at P.2. I also found his submissions on the unreasonableness of bearing the costs of LCD unmeritorious and reject the same.
Letter dated 13 December 2021
44.The above letter addressed the CA Decision in its summary assessment of costs as $80,000 in relation to the refusal to grant leave to appeal on 7 May 2021.
Letter dated 4 February 2021
45.Mr Leung alleged that there were items that have been double claimed and the time and rate are excessively high. They are items in Bills No. 1 and 2 which are related to the application for leave to appeal in the District Court. Mr Leung is in effective saying that those items were claimed by the Receiving Party in the application for leave before the Court of Appeal. Mr Leung listed out the allegedly duplicated items as follows:-
Item
(Mr Leung referred to the D1/D2’s Statement of Costs on 5/10/2020) |
Costs Description |
Granted Amount HK$ |
Double claim in Bill No/Item No. |
Remarks |
|
D1 |
Perusing Judgment 15/5/2020 |
HK$5,800 |
Bill No. 2/ Item 3 |
Costs granted by CA Judgment 12/7/2021 |
|
D2 |
Perusing Judgment 14/8/2020 |
HK$5,800 |
Bill No. 2/ Item 13 |
Ditto |
|
D3 |
Perusing the Trial Bundles |
HK$5,800 |
Bill No.1 Stages 2-4/ various items |
Ditto, the trial bundles were studied and prepared by Defendants’ solicitors |
|
D5 |
Perusing the Ground of Appeal |
HK$11,600 |
Bill No. 2/ Item 7 |
Same content of the ground of appeal claimed in Bill No. 2 Item 7 and claimed in D6 |
|
D8 |
Perusing the Application Bundle |
HK$11,600 |
Bill No.1& 2, various items |
No new documents with same documents in Bill No. 1 & 2. New document work has been claimed in D6 and D7. |
46.I do not agree with Mr Leung’s contention. Mr Leung appears to be misunderstanding the CA Decision. The assessment of costs was conducted by summary assessment instead of taxing the costs item by item. Furthermore, with reference to the CA Decision and paragraph 53 of the decision in the Court of Appeal on 7 May 2021, it was clear that the Court of Appeal was fully aware of the previous proceeding when assessing the costs of the Receiving Party. There are no merits in Mr Leung’s submissions.
Hearing on 16 June 2022
47.During the review hearing, Mr Leung repeated his submissions during the taxation hearing that there was purported statement in the WhatsApp messages by the 2nd defendant that he had paid to the solicitors HK$35,000. I adopt the CA judgment at paragraph 13 that “the fact that the defendants as a client had paid certain sum on account to their solicitors at a particular time, without more, does not show that the final actual costs incurred by the solicitors in the matter is excessive or unreasonable.”
48.In addition, Mr Leung supported his case that the figures in the Bills No. 1 and 2 were excessive as they were also objected by the solicitors for the third party. The stance of the solicitors for the third party remained as it was and did not have any binding effect on this court. These submissions did not assist Mr Leung’s case.
49.Despite that Mr Leung confirmed that his submissions were completed during the review hearing, Mr Leung submitted a handwritten document dated 16 June 2022 repeating a number of his points immediately after the review hearing. According to my directions dated 23 February 2022, no further documents be filed by the parties unless otherwise directed by the court. No leave was granted to Mr Leung to submit the said document. Even if leave be granted, the points therein were repetitive to his submissions and did not assist his case.
Individual Items under Bills No. 1 and No. 2
50.The individual items which were objected and disputed by Mr Leung in the Review are listed out, considered and determined as per stated in the Table annexed. The items that had already been taxed off in the Taxation Hearing but nonetheless listed in Mr Leung’s Appendix F-table of reasons for Master to review your assessment against the bill of costs No. 1 and Appendix G-table of reasons for Master to review your assessment against the bill of cost No. 2 are not included in the Table annexed.
Costs of the Review
51.I am of the decision that Mr Leung is to a large extent unsuccessful in the Review and therefore shall be liable to 80% of the costs of the Review of the Receiving Party. The quantum shall be assessed summarily on paper. I make a costs order nisi that the costs of the Review be to the Receiving Party be paid by Mr Leung 28 days after summary assessment. The costs order nisi shall turn absolute, should no submission be made by any party within 14 days from the date hereof.
52.Should there be any submissions on varying the costs order nisi, the submissions shall not be more than 3 pages.
53.I shall give directions to summary assessment as follows:-
(1) The Receiving Party shall file a Statement of Costs of not more than 3 pages on or before 6 July 2022;
(2) Mr Leung shall file a List of Objections of not more than 3 pages on or before 20 July 2022.
DCCJ 4454/2017 Bill No. 1
|
Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
Receiving Party (“RP”)’s Claim |
Paying Party (“PP”)’s Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
|
Section A: Solicitors’ costs |
|
1 |
3 |
1. |
Hourly rate |
Ms. Crystal Leung CL: 2,600 (year of admission: 2001) |
1,800 |
2,400 |
1,350 |
See below |
See below |
See below |
|
2 |
3 |
2. |
Hourly rate |
CL1: 3,860 (year of admission: 2001) |
2,600 |
3,200 |
2,130 |
See below |
See below |
See below |
|
7 |
3 |
7. |
Hourly rate |
DIP : 200 |
73 |
200 |
150 |
See below |
See below |
See below |
Hourly rate of CL, CL1 (objection 1, page 3, bill item 1; objection 2, page 3, bill item 2)
PP’s Grounds:
54.Mr Leung repeats his submissions that (a) work which can be and should have been properly done by a more junior solicitor will only be allowed at his/her rate; (b) only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed; (c) drafting of simple form by a solicitor will not be allowed; (d) retention agreement and receipt for the solicitor fee should be produced to prove the defendants have [reasonable] paid their solicitor fee. He further made reference to the CA Decision.
55.He contends that a junior solicitor could handle the case and his rate should be used for the claim according to the above general rules.
56.He said that the standard rate of newly admitted solicitor (ie junior solicitor) is $1,066 to $1,260 (on or before 31/12/2017) and $1,730 afterward respectively.
57.The standard rate for solicitors of 2-4 years’ experience is $1,350 to $1,650 (on or before 31/12/2017) and $2,130 afterward respectively. He also states: “This is a reasonable solicitor rate to be used who can guide and supervise the legal clerk and newly admitted solicitor or trainee for the case.”
Decision in review: Decision in Taxation stands
Reasons for Review Decision:
58.Mr Leung changed his suggested amount from $1,800 (during taxation) to $1,350 (in this review) before 2018 for CL and from $2,600 to $2,130 for CL1 from 2018 respectively. It is unclear of the grounds for such change.
59.The General Objections were discussed in the preceding paragraphs and shall not be repeated therein.
60.I do not agree that the present case could be handled by a solicitor of only 2-4 years’ experience. The main issue in the present case is whether the tenancy agreement was a concluded one. It involves the analysis of the facts at the material times and the application of legal principles of offer, acceptance and counter-offer. Despite that it is not a case of extreme complexity and difficulty and the claimed amount was not at the high end of the District Court jurisdiction, it is clearly inadequate to be handled by solicitors of less than 10 years’ experience. Further, the defendants also commenced a Third Party proceedings which justified a more senior solicitor to handle the procedural complexity involved.
61.Given the above, I am of the view that the hourly rate of a solicitor of between 9-15 years of seniority shall be adopted. I assessed HK$2,400 as the hourly rate of CL (HK$2,100 to 2,600 before 2018) and HK$3,200 as that of CL1 (HK$3,460 from 2018) being a necessary and proper amount.
62.Further, works such as drafting and considering court documents such as pleadings, list of documents and the documents therein and witness statements involved analytics skills, intellectual input and legal knowledge. They are justified to be done by Ms Leung ie the handling solicitor under the hourly rate of CL/CL1. In view of the existence of the Third Party proceedings, it is also justified for Ms Leung to handle the procedural and case management matters under the rate of CL/CL1.
63.To avoid any repetitions, I am also of the view that unless the particular works in the individual items in the Table herein did not justify the involvement of a solicitor of the hourly rate I adopted (namely CL or CL1 as the case maybe), the rate of CL and CL1 shall be adopted in calculating the claimed costs. I shall give account of the fact that since a solicitor of more than 10 years’ experience has been engaged, the works could be done more efficiently. I shall adjust the time allowed to reflect the same if necessary.
Hourly Rate of DIP (objection 7, page 3, bill item 7)
PP’s Grounds
64.In relation to the defendants acting in person (“DIP”), Mr Leung contended that according to Order 62, the maximum rate should not be more than $200 per hour. The average market man wage is about $73. If the [taxing master] believed a higher rate should be used, $150 per hour would [be] a more reasonable rate for the company manager in the circumstances.
Decision in review: Decision in Taxation stands
Reasons for Review Decision:
65.Mr Leung changed his suggested amount from $200 (during taxation) to $150 (in this review). It is unclear of the grounds for such change.
66.Order 62 rule 28A (3) provides that “(3) where in the opinion of the taxing master the litigant has not suffered any pecuniary loss in doing any work to which the costs relate, he shall not be allowed in respect of the time reasonably spent by him on the work more than $200 an hour.” $200 has been adopted as a reference in assessing the hourly rate of a litigant in person in taxation. In the present case, I could not see any particular reasons for an hourly rate of less than $200 be adopted given the nature of the case and the procedural matters abovementioned. The suggestion of average market man wage being $73 and hourly rate being $150 was not substantiated. It also begged the question why $200 was suggested in the taxation but a reduced amount was proposed in the review.
|
Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Objections and
Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
Stage 1
|
|
3 |
4 |
2 |
Drafting Notice to Act |
CL:15mins |
Work can be done by litigation clerk at 533 per hour |
CL: 8 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Solicitors’ work should not be allowed according to general rules |
Adjusted to: 2 mins allowed for CL |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The case was handled by CL and the documents concerned though a simple one, was justified to be handled by CL in a shorter time.
|
|
4 |
4 |
3 |
Considering WhatsApp records (67pages) |
CL1:2 hrs |
30 mins |
CL1:30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The WhatsApp messages were contemporaneous documents which recorded the exchanges between the parties at the material times. It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the same. |
|
5 |
4-5 |
4 |
Drafting Defence |
CL1:3.5hrs |
1.5 hrs |
CL1:1.5 hrs allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
12 pages of substance with many careless mistakes e.g. date and was amended later.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Defence is an important document in these proceedings which contains substantive matters.
It is necessary and proper to be drafted by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1.
The need for amendments in later stage does not affect that the work of drafting defence shall be done. |
|
6 |
5 |
5 |
Attending conducting company search against Third Party |
CL1:15 mins |
Tax off |
LE: 10 mins allowed
(indicated as 10 mins in Mr. Leung’s table) |
Tax off |
Solicitors’ work is not necessary |
Decision in Taxation stands |
It is necessary and proper to conduct the company search against Third Party. The work could be handled by LE. |
|
8 |
5 |
7a |
Drafting Third Party Notice (3 pages) |
CL1:15 mins |
5 mins |
CL1:10 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Solicitor work should not be allowed for drafting standard form according to general rules |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Third Party Notice is an important document in these proceedings which contains substantive matters. It is necessary and proper to be drafted by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1. |
|
9 |
5 |
7b |
Drafting Third Party Statement of Claim (8 pages) |
CL1: 2 hrs |
45 mins |
CL1:45 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Third Party Statement of Claim is an important document in these proceedings which contains substantive matters. It is necessary and proper to be drafted by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1. |
|
10 |
5 |
7c |
Preparing Statement of Truth (1 page) |
CL1: 5mins |
5 mins |
CL1:5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to: 2 mins allowed for CL1 |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Despite that the Statement of Truth is of standard format, the failure of making a statement of truth may cause serious consequence e.g. striking out.
It is necessary and proper for the handing solicitor to prepare it and see to the completion of the same. |
|
11 |
5 |
7d |
Preparing Acknowledgement of service by LC1 |
LC1: 10 mins |
5 mins |
LC1: 5 mins allowed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
Decision in Taxation stands |
No submissions made and no dispute |
| |
|
7e |
Copies of Prescribed form (8 pages) by LC1 |
No time claimed
(Mr. Leung misquoted as 10 mins) |
No objection raised |
No decision required |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision required |
No decision required |
|
12 |
6 |
8 |
Drafting 2nd Affirmation of Leung Ho Chung (3 pages) (affirmation of service) |
CL1:15 mins |
Tax off |
CL1:15 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Solicitor work should not be allowed for drafting standard form according to general rules |
Adjusted to: 10 mins allowed for CL1 |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The Affirmation is a simple document. There is room for reduction in the time allowed when adopting the rate of CL1. |
|
13 |
6 |
9 |
Considering the Acknowledgement of Service of Third Party Notice (1 page) |
CL1:5 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The Acknowledgment of Service is an important document in these proceedings which marked the position of the Third Party.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to consider the same. |
|
14 |
6 |
10 |
Considering List of Documents (4 pages) |
CL1:20 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the same.
There are 12 items in Schedule 1 and the time allowed is necessary. |
|
15 |
6 |
11 |
Considering Reply (9 paragraphs in 2 pages) |
CL1:30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The Reply contains substantive matters. It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to consider the same.
Despite that it is of 2 pages, there are 9 paragraphs contained therein. |
|
16 |
6 |
12 |
Considering Timetabling Questionnaire of Plaintiff |
CL1:30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the position of the Mr. Leung in case management matters. |
|
17 |
6 |
13 |
Considering Case Management Summons of Plaintiff |
CL1:10 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 5mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider case management matters.
Although order sought only being “to seek further direction to proceed the case”, Mr. Leung also attached the above timetabling questionnaire to summons. It therefore justified the time for the handling solicitor to check the documents. |
|
18 |
6 |
14 |
Considering Timetabling Questionnaire of Third Party |
CL1:30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the position of the Third party in case management matters. |
|
19 |
7 |
15a |
Drafting Timetabling Questionnaire of 1st and 2nd Defendants |
CL1:40 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the timetabling questionnaire which informed the position of the Defendants in case management matters. |
|
20 |
7 |
15b |
Drafting Summary of Brief Background of the Case and Issues to be Tried |
CL1:45 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the documents which contain substantive content. |
|
21 |
7 |
15c |
Drafting Proposed Direction |
CL1:10 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to propose directions for the case. |
|
22 |
7 |
16 |
Considering Defence of Third Party |
CL1:60 mins |
15 mins |
CL1: 45 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The Defence of Third Party contains substantive content. It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the same.
Further, the Defence of Third Party contains 15 paragraphs while some paragraphs contain subparagraphs. It is justified to maintain the time allowed in taxation. |
|
23 |
7 |
17 |
Considering Mediation Certificate filed by Third Party |
CL1:10mins |
5 mins |
CL1:5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to consider the stance of the Third Party on mediation for possible resolution. |
|
24 |
8 |
18a |
Reviewing files of papers preparatory to the Hearing on 12/4/2018 |
CL1:30mins |
10 mins |
CL1:30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to prepare for the hearing of Case Management Summons. |
|
25 |
8 |
18b |
Court attendance on 12/4/2018 |
CL:1 hr |
At reasonable solicitor rate at $2,600 per hour |
CL1:1 hr allowed
(the exact time shall be 79 mins but the Court only allowed 1 hr as per claimed ) |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to attend the hearing of Case Management Summons. |
|
26 |
8 |
19 and 21 |
Drafting Order (4 pages) and considering and engrossing the approved Order |
CL1: 20 mins and 15 mins |
10 mins |
CL1:10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Substantial time was taxed off during taxation to reflect that the work done by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1 shall be completed in short time. |
|
27 |
8-9 |
23a-e |
Communications with clients (1st and 2nd Defendants):
4 meetings, 4 letters written, 2 letters received, 13 telephone calls and copying charges |
CL: 4hrs 15 mins;
CL1: 2 hrs 40 mins |
CL: 2 hrs;
CL1: 1 hr 20 mins |
CL: 3 hrs 27 mins;
CL1: 2 hrs 12 mins allowed |
CL: 207 mins at $1,350;
CL1: 67.5 mins at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
28 |
9 |
24a-b |
Communication with Plaintiff:
4 letters written and 2 letters received |
CL1: 50 mins |
20 mins |
CL1:25 mins allowed |
CL1: 12.5 mins at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
29 |
9 |
25a |
Communication with Third Party:
1 letter written |
CL1:10mins |
5 mins |
CL1:5 mins allowed |
CL1: 2.5 mins at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
30 |
10 |
26a-c |
Communications with Solicitors for Third Party:
4 letters written, 3 letters received and 3 telephone calls |
CL1:1 hr 20 mins |
30 mins |
CL1:30 mins allowed |
CL1: 15 mins at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed |
|
31 |
10 |
27a |
Communications with Court:
1 letter written |
CL1:10 mins
(Mr. Leung misquoted 15 mins in his table) |
5 mins |
CL1:5 mins allowed |
CL1: 2.5 mins at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed |
|
32 |
10 |
27b |
Communications with Court:
1 telephone call |
CL1: 5mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
CL1:2.5 mins at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed |
|
Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Objections and
Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
|
Stage 2 |
|
33 |
11 |
28 |
Considering Notice of Hearing (CMC) |
CL1: 5mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1:2 mins allowed. |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to handle the matter on Case Management Conference.
However, in view of the content of the notice, there is room for downward adjustment in the time allowed. |
|
34 |
11 |
29 |
Considering documents from Plaintiff (50 pages) |
CL1: 1 hr 30 mins |
30 mins |
CL1: 1hr 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the documents. Many of which provided evidential proof to the issues of the case. |
|
35 |
11 |
30 |
Considering List of Documents from Third Party |
CL1: 20 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the list. |
|
36 |
11 |
31 |
Consider documents on the List of Documents from Solicitors for Third Party (23 pages) |
CL1: 40 mins |
Tax off since double counting |
CL1: 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the documents. Many of which provided evidential proof to the issues of the case. |
|
37 |
12 |
32 |
Drafting Mediation Certificate for 1st and 2nd Defendants (6 pages) |
CL:10 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 8 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to draft the said document. |
|
38 |
12 |
33 |
Drafting List of Documents of 1st and 2nd Defendants (8 pages) |
CL1: 40 mins |
15 mins |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the said document. |
|
39 |
12 |
34 |
Considering Witness Statement of Leung Wai Cheung (3 pages) |
CL1: 30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the witness statement which set out the evidence of the witness. |
|
40 |
12 |
35 |
Considering Witness Statement of Wong Siu Lai (5 pages) |
CL1: 50 mins |
15 mins |
CL1: 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the witness statement which set out the evidence of the witness. |
|
41 |
12 |
36 |
Considering Witness Statement of Wong Siu Lai (17 pages) |
CL1: 1 hr 30 mins |
30 mins |
CL1: 50 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the witness statement which set out the evidence of the witness. |
|
42 |
12 |
37 |
Considering Plaintiff’s Listing Questionnaire and Brief Background |
CL1: 50 mins |
15 mins |
CL1: 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle the matter on Case Management Conference. |
|
45 |
13 |
40 |
Drafting Witness Statement of Mohammed Baya Divan Hasanj (19 pages) |
CL: 4 hrs 30 mins |
2 hrs |
CL1: 2hrs 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The witness statement which gave a factual account of the incident was justified to be drafted by the handling solicitor. |
|
46 |
13 |
41 |
Considering copies of documents on List of Documents of Third party (41 pages) |
CL1: 1 hr |
15 mins |
CL1: 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 20 mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Many of the documents, except the agreements between the Third Party and the Plaintiff and that between the Third Party and the Defendants are company searches and land search results.
There is room for reducing the time allowed. |
|
47 |
13 |
42 |
Drafting Joint Statement of Issues in Dispute (3 pages) |
CL1: 30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Drafting the Statement of Issues required intellectual input and was justified to the time at the hourly rate allowed. |
|
48 |
13-14 |
43 |
Considering Plaintiff’s Supplemental List of Documents with copies of documents (15 pages) |
CL1: 30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the documents. Many of which provided evidential proof to the issues of the case. |
|
49 |
14 |
44 |
Considering WhatsApp records (12 pages) |
CL: 1hr |
Tax off- double counted |
CL: 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is justified for the handling solicitor to consider the whole set of WhatsApp record. |
|
51 |
14 |
46 |
Considering Joint Statement of Issues in Dispute for Third Party (2 pages) |
CL1: 10 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Considering the Statement of Issues required intellectual input and was justified to the time at the hourly rate allowed. |
|
52 |
14 |
47 |
Considering Reminder from Court (1 page) |
CL1: 5 mins |
2 mins |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 3mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider case management matters.
However, in view of the simple content of the Reminder, there is room to adjust the allowed time downward. |
|
53 |
14-15 |
48 |
Considering Hearsay Notice by Third Party (3 pages) |
CL1:15 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130
(Plaintiff stated “List questionnaire” instead of hearsay notice) |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the Hearsay Notice with the time allowed. |
|
54 |
15 |
49 |
Considering Listing Questionnaire of Third Party |
CL1: 50 mins |
15 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the position of the Third Party on case management matters. |
|
55 |
15 |
50 |
Considering Certificate of Time Estimate for Third Party |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the Certificate of Time Estimate for setting down purpose. |
|
56 |
15 |
51 |
Drafting Supplemental List of Documents for 1st and 2nd Defendants |
CL1: 30 mins |
5 mins.
Mr. Leung alleged that the work was due to Ds’ negligence and omission in submissions. |
CL1: 5 mins allowed
(Mr. Leung misquoted as 10 mins) |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Additional item shall be listed out in any event and the Supplemental List only includes one item. |
|
57 |
15 |
52 |
Drafting Hearsay Notice of 1st and 2nd Defendants (Mr. Leung misquoted as supplementary hearsay notice) |
CL1: 20 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the hearsay notice to include the relevant documents therein. |
|
58 |
15-16 |
53 |
CMC bundle for Third Party Proceedings (for CMC on 27/9/2018): including drafting Draft Index (3 pages), copies of documents attached thereto (78 pages) and Drafting Index to Bundle of Documents for Trial for Third Party Proceedings (4 pages) |
CL1: 1 hr 15 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 25 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Not solicitors’ work. Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to LE1: 30 mins allowed |
The work which required limited intellectual input could be completed by legal executive.
Coping and collating documents shall be charged as scale costs.
The CMC bundle was with only 7 items and Draft Index Bundle of Documents for Trial for Third Party Proceedings was of 4 pages/ 18 items. |
|
59 |
16 |
54a-b |
CMC hearing- reviewing case files and attendance on 27/9/2018 |
CL1: 45 mins |
20 mins |
CL1: 43 mins (30 mins preparation and 13 mins attendance) allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Not provided |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to prepare for and attend the Case Management Conference. |
|
60 |
16 |
55 |
Drafting Order on 27/9/2018 (4 pages) |
CL1: 20 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper and more costs effective for the handling solicitor who attended the hearing to draft the case management directions. |
|
61 |
16 |
57 |
Considering and engrossing Order |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off, duplicated with item above |
|
62 |
17 |
59a-d |
Communications with clients being 1st and 2nd Defendants:
4 meetings, 5 letters/emails written, 2 letters/ emails received/ 8 calls and copying charges |
CL1: 7 hrs |
3 hrs |
CL1: 3 hrs 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
63 |
17 |
60 |
Communication with Plaintiff:
10 letters/emails written and 5 letters received |
CL1: 2 hrs 35 mins
(Mr. Leung misquoted as 2 hrs) |
1 hr |
CL1: 1 hr 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
64 |
17-18 |
61a-c |
Communications with Solicitors for Third Party:
11 letters written, 10 letters received and 1 call |
CL1: 4 hrs |
1.5 hr |
CL1: 1 hr 40 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Objections and
Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
|
Stage 3 |
|
65 |
18 |
62 |
Drafting 2nd Supplemental List of Document for Defendants (8 pages) |
CL1:30mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
It showed that the solicitor was careless and negligence in drafting the last list.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130
Excessive claim |
Adjusted to CL1: 5 mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Additional items shall be listed in any event.
Supplemental List only includes two items. There is room for adjusting the time downward. |
|
66 |
19 |
63 |
Drafting Supplemental Witness statement of Mohammed Bava Divan Hansan (12 pages) |
CL1: 3 hrs 30 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 45 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
The Solicitor was careless and negligence in drafting the last one.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130
Excessive claim |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The witness statement gave supplementary information to the WhatsApp messages and the cheques. It was justified to be drafted by the handling solicitors.
Court granted leave to the Defendants to file and serve the witness statements. No adverse costs order was made. |
|
67 |
19 |
64 |
Considering Listing Questionnaire of Plaintiff |
CL1: 30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the position of Mr. Leung on case management matters.
The subject Listing Questionnaire was an updated one. |
|
68 |
19 |
65 |
Considering Time Estimate Certificate by Plaintiff |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the Certificate of Time Estimate for setting down purpose. |
|
69 |
19 |
66 |
Drafting Joint Statement of Issues in Dispute for both the Main Action and Third Party Proceedings |
CL1: 30 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Double counting
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Additional 5 paragraphs were added to the Agreed Issues in Dispute for the Third Party Proceedings.
Drafting joint issues involves intellectual input and was justified to be handled by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1. |
|
70 |
19 |
67 |
Considering Listing Questionnaire of Third Party |
CL1: 30 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the position of the Third Party on case management matters. |
|
71 |
19 |
68 |
CMC Bundle for the Main Action and Third Party Proceedings (for hearing on 3/4/2019):
Drafting Index (2 pages), Preparing and collating CMC Bundle and Drafting updated Index to Bundle of Documents for Trial for the Main Action and the Third Party Proceedings (5 pages) |
CL1: 1 hr |
Tax off |
CL1: 25 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Not a solicitor’s work. Work can be done by legal staff |
Adjusted to LE1: 30 mins allowed |
The work which required limited intellectual input could be completed by legal executive.
Coping and collating documents shall be charged as scale costs.
The CMC bundle was with 7 additional items and there were 5 additional items in the draft trial bundle. |
|
72 |
20 |
69 |
Drafting Listing Questionnaire |
CL1: 1 hr |
Tax off |
CL1: 30 mins |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Only need minor amendment. Work can be done by legal staff. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is justified for the handling solicitor to deal with case management matters.
The Defendants changed their stance from case ready to set down to amendments to Defence was required (see Listing Questionnaire field on 19/9/2018). The change in the Listing Questionnaire was not minor. |
|
73 |
20 |
70 |
Drafting Time Estimate of the Defendants |
CL1: 10mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Only need minor amendment. Work can be done by legal staff.
Solicitor rate at $2,130 should be used. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the Certificate of Time Estimate for setting down purpose.
No previous estimation. |
|
74 |
21 |
71 |
CMC hearing on 3/4/2019 |
CL1: 1 hr 30 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 56 mins allowed
(30 mins preparation and 26 mins attendance) |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Delay caused by the Defendants’ Solicitors requesting for another amendment due to their own mistakes.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
No adverse costs order was made against the Defendants.
Case management directions had to be made in any event. |
|
75 |
21 |
72 |
Considering memo dated 3/4/2019 from Court |
CL1: 10 mins |
2 mins |
CL1: 2 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 1 min allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is more costs effective for the handling solicitor who attended the hearing to attend to the Court’s note.
However, there is room for adjusting the time allowed further for the matter involved was administrative. |
|
76 |
21 |
73 |
Drafting Order of Master B Mak dated 3/4/2019 |
CL1: 15 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper and more costs effective for the handling solicitor who attended the hearing to draft the case management directions |
|
77 |
22 |
75 |
Considering and Engrossing the Approved Order |
CL1: 15 mins |
Tax off |
|
78 |
22 |
77a-c |
Communications with clients:
4 meetings, 1 letter written, 9 telephone calls and copying charges |
CL1: 5 hrs 15 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 2 hrs 58 mins allowed |
CL1: 1 hr 29 mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
79 |
22-23 |
78a and b |
Communications with Plaintiff:
1 letter written and 1 call |
CL1: 1 5mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 8 mins allowed |
CL1: 4mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130.
Plaintiff did not receive the call and only communicated by way of letters |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed.
The telephone call was evidenced by letter dated 19/3/2019. |
|
80 |
23 |
79a-b |
Communications with Solicitors for the Third Party:
6 letters, 1 call |
CL1: 1 hr 15 mins |
30 mins allowed |
CL1: 40 mins allowed |
CL1: 20 mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Objections and
Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
|
Stage 4 |
|
81 |
23 |
81 |
Considering the Application to set a case down for trial |
CL1: 5mins |
Use the reasonable solicitor rate at 2,600 per hour |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 3mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the documents with reduced time. |
|
82 |
23 |
82 |
Considering Mediation Certificate by Plaintiff |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off. Parties shall not claim legal costs for mediation as agreed. |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is justified for the handling solicitor to consider the mediation certificate for possible opportunity for mediation. |
|
83 |
23-24 |
83 |
Considering Resume of Ms. Yvonne S.W. Wong (2 pages) |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Ms. Fong was proposed by handling solicitor. It is not a necessary work.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Even if Ms. Fong was proposed by the handling solicitor CL1 was nonetheless required to consider Ms. Fong’s resume.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider matters on mediation. |
|
84 |
24 |
84 |
Drafting Mediation Notice of Defendants (5 pages) |
CL1: 25 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle matters on mediation. |
|
86 |
24 |
86 |
Considering Mediation Response of Third Party (4 pages) |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off.
Not a necessary work. |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Not necessary work as the response is a strange reply on accepting the mediator proposed
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle matters on mediation. |
|
87 |
24 |
87 |
Considering Mediation Response of Plaintiff |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off.
Not a necessary work |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Not necessary work as the response is strange reply on accepting the mediator proposed
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle matters on mediation. |
|
88 |
24 |
88 |
Drafting Draft Mediation Minutes of Defendants (4 pages) |
CL1: 20 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Work should be done by mediator and not solicitor.
Work can be done by legal clerk. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bills items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle matters on mediation. |
|
89 |
25 |
89 |
Considering Notice of result of Consent Application (Re Mediation Minutes) |
CL1: 5 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 3mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the notice and take action pursuant to the Court’s directions. |
|
90 |
25 |
90 |
Considering Notice of Hearing |
CL1: 5 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 3 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1:1 min allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
However, there is room for adjusting the time downward as the matter is simple. |
|
91 |
25 |
91 |
Considering Notice of Trial |
CL1: 25 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 15mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1:1 min allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
However, there is room for adjust downward the time as the matter is simple. |
|
92 |
25 |
92 |
Drafting Mediation Bundle for Mediation Conference |
CL1: 25 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Work should be done by mediator and not solicitor.
Work can be done by legal clerk. |
Adjusted to LE1: 25 mins allowed. |
The work which required limited intellectual input could be completed by legal executive.
Mediator shall not be responsible for such work. |
|
93 |
25-26 |
93 |
Drafting Index for Pre-trial review Bundle |
CL1: 20 mins |
Tax off |
Tax off |
Tax off |
Work can be done by legal clerk. |
Tax off already. No review decision is required. |
Tax off already. No review decision is required. |
|
94 |
26 |
94 |
Revising Index of Mediation Bundle |
CL1: 10mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
Tax off |
Work should be done by mediator and not solicitor.
Work can be done by legal clerk. |
Adjusted to LE1: 10 mins allowed |
The work which required limited intellectual input could be completed by legal executive.
Mediator shall not be responsible for such work.
The Mediation Bundle was similar to and was a combination of CMC Bundle and Bundle of Documents for Trial. |
|
95 |
26 |
95 |
Considering Mediation Agreement (8 pages) |
CL1: 30 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130
The Mediation Agreement was signed on the conference date before discussion |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Mediation Agreement was an important document on mediation that shall be handled by handling solicitor. |
|
96 |
26 |
96 |
Mediation session held before Ms. Yvonne Fong: (a) Reviewing files of documents preparatory to the mediation and (b) attendance |
CL1: (a) 30 mins and (b) 4 hrs |
Tax off |
CL1: (a) 30 mins and (b) 4 hrs allowed |
Reviewing files of documents preparatory to the mediation and attending mediation was double claiming the work done in above item during its attending the mediation.
Mr. Leung requested and agreed with all parties that no solicitor to represent [the parties] and no solicitor’s costs be allowed for attending the mediation conference.
Hence, the Third Party was not represented by solicitors and barristers in the mediation conference. Mr. Leung had requested the mediator to confirm these facts by email on 27/11/2021 and wait for her reply.
Mr. Leung only received the mediation bundle and agreement during mediation conference and could not review any related document for mediation.
Mr. Leung repeated the above submission during the oral hearing of review
The mediation only lasted for 2 hours instead of 4 hours as planned.
The mediation conference was not a legal proceedings and shall be treated as a communication meeting between the Defendant[s] and [his] solicitor. Hence only half of time spent shall be allowed.
Only a junior solicitor’s rate shall be used. |
Tax off |
Item 96(a): Decision in Taxation stands
Item 96(b): adjusted to CL1: 2 hours allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle matters on mediation.
The mediation agreement refers. See: document at Objection item 95/ Bill item 95:
Clause 10: “party may be accompanied by legal adviser(s), to assist and advise them” and
Clause 25: “each party further agrees that all fees and costs of the mediation shall be costs of and incidental to the proceedings of the Dispute if the Mediation fails.”
In the oral hearing of the review, Mr. Leung agreed that he had read the Mediation Agreement before he signed on it. He said that he did not read it closely and he overlooked the terms. He did not have sufficient time to read the mediation agreement. No reply was given by Ms. Fong.
Mr. Leung’s submissions did not alter the facts that he signed the Mediation Agreement voluntarily and the Mediation Agreement and the terms thereof were binding on him.
Whether Mr. Leung reviewed the mediation bundle was not the scope of work claimed and therefore is irrelevant.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed.
RP was not able to present the contemporaneous record of the mediation conference. Hence, only 2 hours under item 96(b) was allowed. |
|
98 |
27 |
98a-b |
Pre-Trial Review: reviewing case files and attendance |
CL1: 1hr 30 mins |
1 hr 10 mins |
CL1: 1hr 30 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1 ,2 and 7 refers.
Pre-trial review hearing shall be attended by handling solicitor. |
|
99 |
27 |
99 & 101 |
Drafting Order on 1/8/2019 and Considering and Engrossing |
CL1: 30 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1 ,2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper and more costs effective for the handling solicitor who attended the hearing to draft the order. |
|
100 |
28 |
103 |
Considering 2nd Supplemental List of Documents of Plaintiff and copies of documents |
CL1: 30 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1 ,2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the List and the documents therein. |
|
101 |
28 |
104 |
Bundle of Documents for Trial: Drafting index (6 pages) and preparing and collating copies of documents (415 pages)
(Mr. Leung misquoted as CMC Bundle) |
CL1: 30 mins |
Done by legal clerk within 30 mins at $860 per hour |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to LE1: 30 mins allowed |
The work which required limited intellectual input could be completed by legal executive.
Coping and collating documents shall be charged as scale costs. |
|
102 |
28 |
105 |
Considering Submissions of the Opening Statement of the Plaintiff |
CL1: 1 hr |
15 mins |
CL1: 50 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Substantive submissions concerned and justified to be handled by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1. |
|
103 |
28 |
106 |
Considering 1st Defendant’s Notice to Act in Person |
CL1: 10 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The court adopted the time suggested by Mr. Leung in taxation already. |
|
104 |
29 |
107 |
Considering 2nd Defendant’s Notice to Act in Person |
CL1:10 mins |
Tax off- double claimed as the costs should be included in Bill item 106 |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
At Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Double counting as the 2nd Defendant is the sole owner of the 1st Defendant. Two notices are the same.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The court adopted the time suggested by Mr. Leung in taxation already.
It is a separate Notice of Act in Person. |
|
105 |
29 |
108 |
Communications with clients:
1 meeting, 4 letters/emails written/ 13 telephone calls and copying charges |
CL1: 3 hrs 50 mins |
3 hours and need justification for CL1 |
CL1: 3 hrs 45 mins allowed |
CL1: 1hr 52 mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
106 |
29-30 |
109a-g |
Communication with Plaintiff:
8 letters written, 5 letters received, 3 calls, considering 3 copy letters from Plaintiff to Court and 1 from Plaintiff to mediator |
CL1: 2hrs 55 mins |
1 hr and need justification for CL1 |
CL1: 1.5 hr allowed |
CL1: 45 mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130.
Plaintiff did not receive call which was not necessary and only communicated with letters |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed.
The calls were supported by Mr. Leung’s letter dated 4/4/2019 and the records of the handling solicitor. |
|
107 |
30 |
110a-c |
Communications with Solicitors for Third Party |
CL1: 3hrs |
1 hr and need justification for CL1 |
CL1: 1 hrs 20 mins allowed |
CL1: 40 mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
108 |
30 |
111a-c |
Communications with Mediator:
4 letters/email written; 3 letters/emails received; 2 calls |
CL1: 1hr 40 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 67 mins allowed |
CL1: 33 mins at Solicitors rate $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
|
Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Objections and
Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
|
Stage 5 |
|
110 |
31 |
113 |
Drafting Opening Submission of Defendants (4 pages) |
DIP: 1hr |
Use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP |
DIP: 30 mins at $200 allowed |
DIP at $150 |
As the rate claimed for DIP should not be more than $200, it would be more reasonable to use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP rate. If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
111 |
31 |
114a-b |
Trial (Day 1): Reviewing files of documents and attendance |
DIP: 8 hrs 30 mins
(3 hrs of review and 5.5 hrs of attendance) |
Use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP and actual court time |
DIP: 3 hrs 30 mins allowed
(review 2 hrs and attendance 90mins) |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
112 |
32 |
115a-b |
Trial (Day 2) |
DIP: 6 hrs
(30 mins preparation and 5.5 hrs attendance) |
Use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP and actual court time |
DIP: 5 hrs 22mins allowed
(review 30 mins and attendance 4 hrs 52 mins) |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
113 |
32 |
116 |
Trial (Day 3) |
DIP: 6 hrs
(30 mins preparation and 5.5 hrs attendance) |
Use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP and actual court time |
DIP: 6 hrs allowed
(review 30 mins and attendance 5 hrs 32 mins, limited to 6 hrs as claimed) |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bills items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
114 |
32 |
117a-b |
Trial (Day 4) |
DIP: 6 hrs
(30 mins preparation and 5.5 hrs attendance) |
Use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP and actual court time |
DIP: 5 hrs 3mins allowed (review 30 mins and attendance 4 hrs 33 mins) |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
115 |
32-33 |
118a-b |
Trial (Day 5) |
DIP: 6 hrs
(30 mins preparation and 5.5 hrs attendance) |
Use the average man hour wage of $73 for DIP and actual court time |
DIP: 4 hrs 3mins allowed (review 30 mins and attendance 4 hrs 33 mins) |
DIP at $150 |
Trial day was extended due to DIP not well prepared for the hearing and kept asking repeated questions.
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
No order given by the trial judge in reducing the time allowed for the trial day. |
|
116 |
33 |
119 |
Considering Closing Submissions of Third Party |
DIP: 2 hrs |
Double counting as same work done in Bill item 118 |
DIP: 45 mins allowed |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
117 |
33 |
120 |
Drafting Closing Submission of the Defendants |
DIP: 2 hrs |
Double counting as same work done in Bill item 118 |
DIP: 30 mins allowed |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
118 |
33 |
121 |
Trial (Day 6) |
DIP: 6 hrs
(30 mins preparation and 5.5 hrs attendance) |
Double counting as same work done in Bill item 118 |
DIP: 3 hrs 10 mins allowed
(review 30 mins and attendance 2 hrs 40 mins) |
DIP at $150 |
Trial day was extended due to DIP no well prepared for the hearing and kept asking repeated questions.
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
No order given by the trial judge in reducing the time allowed for the trial day. |
|
119 |
33 |
122 |
Considering Notice of Hand Down Judgment |
DIP: 5 mins |
Double counting as same work done in Bill item 118 |
DIP: 5 mins allowed |
DIP at $150 |
If the tax master wants to use a higher rate, it would be a “better compromise” at $150 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
|
120 |
34 |
123 |
Considering Written Judgment (37 pages) |
DIP: 3 hrs |
1 hr |
DIP: 2 hrs |
DIP- 30 mins at $150 |
DIP only needs to read the conclusion and time spent is excessive. It was unlikely for DIP to study the legal principle and argument in depth. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
DIP was justified to read the judgment in full and claim the time thereof. |
|
121 |
34 |
124 |
Drafting the Judgement |
CL1: 20 mins |
Not a necessary work for solicitors |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the judgement. |
|
123 |
34 |
127 |
Considering Letter from Clerk to Deputy District Judge |
CL1: 5 mins |
Solicitor rate at 2,600 |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to handle the matters on costs as informed by the Letter from the Court. |
|
124 |
34 |
128 |
Scale Costs for the Judgment |
C: 12
F: 72
S: 50 |
Solicitor rate at 2,600 |
Scale Costs allowed as claimed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
|
125 |
35 |
129 |
General Care from November 2017 to September 2019 (23 months) |
CL: 15 mins; CL1: 2 hrs |
Tax off |
CL: 10 mins; CL1: 105 mins allowed |
CL: 10 mins at $1,350;
CL1: 105 mins at $2,130 |
Many amended submission with mistakes proved and no close supervision at all
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $1,350 and $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to claim general care for works not itemized. |
| Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
| Section B: Disbursements: B.2 Other Disbursements |
| 128 |
36 |
2 |
Search fees: |
6/11/2017: $38; 2/1/2018: $36; 8/9/2018: $38 |
No suggestion |
6/11/2017: $38; 8/9/2018: $38 allowed |
Justification of necessity on each search. No suggestion at this stage. |
Justification of necessity on each search. No suggestion at this stage. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Only company searches on the 1st Defendant and Third Party were allowed. |
| Section C: Costs of Taxation |
| 129 |
37 |
1 |
Attending instructing LCD to prepare the Bill and collating documents |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to oversee the taxation matters. |
| 130 |
37 |
2 |
Commencement of Taxation |
LCD: 21 hrs |
15 hrs |
LCD: 18 hrs allowed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
| 131 |
37 |
3 |
Approving the Bill of Costs |
CL1: 1 hr |
30 mins |
CL1: 30 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to oversee the taxation matters. |
| 133 |
37 |
5 |
Considering List of Objections: (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 30 mins |
|
LCD: 30 mins allowed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
| |
37 |
7 |
Attending preparing the case for taxation: (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 640 mins
(Mr. Leung misquoted as 5 hrs) |
|
LCD: 5 hrs allowed |
Tax off |
No conference held
Double counting with Bill item C.2 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Works of LCD included preparing tables for agreement, preparing 4 taxation bundles and report to the Court. 5 hours justified. |
| |
38 |
8 |
Attending Court for taxation (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 3 hrs 15 mins |
|
LCD: 3 hrs 15 mins allowed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
| |
38 |
9 |
Attending making calculation of the taxed costs and disbursements; liaising with LCD of the paying party for agreement and reporting the outcome to instructing solicitors (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 60 mins |
|
LCD: 60 mins allowed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
| |
38 |
10 |
Drafting Allocatur |
LCD: 15 mins |
|
LCD: 10 mins allowed |
No submissions made |
No submissions made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
DCCJ 4454/2017 Bill No. 2
67.The items that have been taxed off in the Taxation and with no disputes are not included in the table below.
| Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Reasons for Review Decision |
| Section A: Solicitors’ costs |
| 1 |
2 |
1. CL1 |
Hourly rate |
$3,860 (year of admission: 2001) |
CL1: $2,600 |
$3,200 |
$2,130 |
Mr. Leung’s position was summarised in the Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers. |
| 2 |
2 |
LC1
(Mr. Leung misquoted as LCD) |
Hourly rate |
$860 |
Mr. Leung mentioned “who can guide and supervise the legal clerk and newly admitted solicitor or trainee for the case” |
$860 |
No submissions on figure made |
No submissions on figure made |
No decision on review required |
No decision on review required |
| Stage 1 |
| 2 |
3 |
1 |
Considering Plaintiff’s Summons (2pages) |
CL1: 10 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The summons is an important document in these proceedings which marked the start of the application for leave to appeal.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the same. |
| 3 |
3 |
2 |
Considering Affirmation of Plaintiff |
CL1: 2 hrs 30 mins |
60 mins |
CL1: 1 hr allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The affirmation is an important document in these proceedings which supports the application for leave to appeal.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the same. |
| 4 |
3 |
3 |
Considering Written Judgment (37 pages) |
CL1: 1 hrs 30 mins |
30 mins |
CL1: 1 hr 30 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the written judgment for dealing with the application for leave. |
| 5 |
3 |
6 |
Considering letter from Messrs Cheung Fung & Hui to Clerk to the Court. |
CL: 5 mins |
Tax off |
Tax off
(Mr. Leung mistaken as 3 mins allowed) |
Not solicitors’ work
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Tax off in taxation already. No decision in review required. |
Tax off in taxation already. No decision in review required. |
| 6 |
4 |
7 |
Considering Ground of Appeal |
CL1: 1 hr |
30 mins |
CL1: 30 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Mr. Leung set out his grounds for leave to appeal in this document.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to consider the same. |
| 7 |
4 |
8 |
Drafting Skeleton Submissions in Opposition |
CL1: 4 hrs |
1.5 hr |
CL1: 2 hrs allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Work of substantive matters justified to be done by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1. |
| 8 |
4 |
9 |
Drafting List of Authorities |
CL1: 20 mins |
Tax off as double counting since same work in item 8 above |
CL1: 15 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Double counting since same work in item 8 above
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
List of authorities was separated from the Skeleton Submissions. The List contains 7 authorities.
Work of substantive matters justified to be done by handling solicitor under the rate of CL1. |
| 9 |
4 |
10 |
Drafting Statement of Costs for Summary Assessment (4 pages) |
CL1: 20 mins |
10 mins |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 15 mins allowed. |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to attend to the costs matter.
However, there is room to adjust downward the time allowed since the work required limited intellectual input. |
| 10 |
4 |
11a |
Reviewing files of documents preparatory to the hearing on 17/6/2020 |
CL1: 2 hrs |
30 mins |
CL1: 1 hr allowed |
30 mins and Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
As commented by Hon JA Au that no justification for charging in reviewing in all the documents relating to the earlier application.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 45 mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor who attended the hearing to prepare for it.
However, there is room for adjusting the time downward since time had been claimed and allowed for considering the relevant documents in items above and drafting work for skeleton submissions. |
| 11 |
5 |
11b |
Court attendance |
CL1: 1 hrs 30 mins |
Solicitor’s rate at $2,600 and exact court time be adopted |
CL1: 112 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to attend the argument for leave to appeal which involved substantive arguments. |
| 12 |
5 |
12 |
Considering Notice of Handing Down Decision |
CL1: 3 mins |
Solicitor’s rate at $2,600 |
CL1: 3 mins |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1:2 mins allowed. |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitors to consider the notice of handling down the judgment.
However, in view of the content of the notice being simple, there is room for downward adjustment in time. |
| 13 |
5 |
13 |
Considering Written Decision (31 pages) |
CL1: 1 hr 30 mins |
Solicitor’s rate at $2,600 |
CL1: 1 hr allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130
Should only focus on the conclusion. Time excessive. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
Handling solicitor was justified to read the judgment in full and claim the time thereof. |
| 14 |
5 |
14 |
Drafting the Order (3 pages) |
CL1: 15 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 10 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to draft the order. |
| 15 |
5-6 |
17a-b |
Communications with clients:
2 meeting; 2 letters/emails; copying charges |
CL1: 1hr 20 mins |
30 mins |
CL1: 1 hr 8 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed. |
| 16 |
6 |
18 |
Communications with Plaintiff:
2 letters written; 1 letter received; 1 call |
CL1: 40 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
According to the general rules of taxation, only half of the time spent on communication with client may be allowed.
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130.
Plaintiff did not receive any call. |
Adjusted to CL1: 10 mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
The “general rules of taxation” that only half of the time spent on communication may be allowed shall not be followed.
The fact that no record of phone was presented had been taken into account.
There is room for adjusting the time allowed given the letters concerned simple matters. |
| 19 |
7 |
20b |
General Care and Conduct: Supervising work undertaken by supporting staff from June to August 2020 |
CL1: 15 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 20 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Adjusted to CL1: 15 mins allowed |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to claim general care for works not itemized.
However, the time allowed shall follow the time claimed. It was mistakenly applied 20 mins during taxation. |
| Objection No. in Taxation and Review |
Page No |
Bill Item No |
Work |
RP’s Claim |
PP’s Suggestion in Taxation |
Decision in Taxation |
PP’s “Reasonable Revised Rate or Time Spent” for the Review |
PP’s Grounds |
Decision in Review |
Grounds for Review Decision |
| Section C: Costs of Taxation |
| 20 |
9 |
1 |
Attending instructing LCD to prepare a bill for taxation and collating documents |
CL1: 10 mins |
Tax off |
CL1: 5 mins allowed |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to oversee the taxation matters. |
| 21 |
9 |
2 |
Commencement of Taxation |
LCD: 2hrs |
1 hr |
LCD: 1 hr 15 mins allowed
(Mr. Leung misquoted as 1 hr) |
Tax off |
The work double counted with bill no 1 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
A separate Bill No. 2 (concerning leave to appeal) was prepared in addition to Bill No 1 (main and Third party action).
The work was conducted by LCD and was not duplicated with Bill No. 2 Section C: Bill item 1 above. |
| 22 |
9 |
3 |
Approving Bill of Costs |
CL1: 15 mins |
5 mins |
CL1: 10 mins |
Solicitor rate at $2,130 |
Work can be done by junior solicitors at $2,130 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Reasons for Review Decision on hourly rate above in Bill items 1, 2 and 7 refers.
It is necessary and proper for the handling solicitor to oversee the taxation matters. |
| 24 |
9 |
5 |
Considering List of Objection (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 10 mins |
No Submissions |
LCD: 10 mins allowed |
No Submissions |
No Submissions |
No decision on Review Required |
No decision on Review Required |
| 26 |
10 |
7 |
Attending preparing the case for taxation hearing (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 2 hr 10 mins |
No Submissions
(Mr. Leung mentioned tax off in the table ) |
LCD: 1 hr 15 mins allowed |
Tax off |
No meeting.
Work double counted with item 2 |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Works of LCD included preparing tables for agreement, preparing 1 taxation bundle and report to the Court. The time allowed was justified. |
| 27 |
10 |
8 |
Attending Court for taxation (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 20 mins |
No Submissions |
LCD: 20 mins allowed |
No submissions |
No submissions |
No decision on Review Required |
No decision on Review Required |
| 29 |
10 |
10 |
Attending making calculation of the taxed costs and disbursements; liaising with Defendant’s LCD for agreement on figure and reporting the outcome to instruction solicitors (quantum inserted during taxation) |
LCD: 30 mins |
Tax off |
LCD: 20 mins allowed |
No submissions on time |
No negotiation was done yet. |
Decision in Taxation stands |
Works of LCD on calculation of taxed costs of Bill No. 2 justified the time allowed. |
| 30 |
10 |
11 |
Drafting Allocatur |
LCD: 15 mins |
No Submissions |
LCD: 10 mins allowed |
No Submissions |
No Submissions |
No decision on Review Required |
No decision on Review Required |
The plaintiff was not represented and appeared in person
Mr Daniel Au, instructed by Justin Chow & Co., Law Costs Draftsman, for the defendants
|