Tiger Resort Asia Ltd v. Kazuo Okada and Others

HCA 3017/2017

[2022] HKCFI 3354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 3017 OF 2017

______________

______________

Before:  Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply to List of Objections by the Plaintiff: 14 and 28 October 2022

Date of List of Objections by the 1^st Defendant: 21 October 2022

Date of Decision on Costs: 4 November 2022

________________________

2^nd  DECISION
ON  COSTS
________________________

1.I refer in relation to background to my Decision handed down on 29 July 2022[1] and the first Decision on Costs handed down on 7 October 2022[2].

Costs in respect of P’s Judgment Summons

2.By Statement of Costs of 14 October 2022 filed by Haldanes on its behalf, P claims costs for P’s Judgment Summons and D1’s Relief Summons in the total sum of HK$986,794.

3.Ince & Co (“Ince”) on 21 October 2022 filed a statement of objection on D1’s behalf.

4.As their first of 2 main objections, Ince submit that given the amount of costs claimed, and that the costs of P’s Judgment Summons and D1’s Relief Summons intertwine, formal taxation is more appropriate.

5.D1 has made no prior application to vary the costs order nisi directing summary assessment. The intertwining of costs is a common occurrence. The amount of costs claimed is by itself not a sufficient reason to justify taxation. The first main objection has no merits.

6.As their second main objection, Ince claim that according to my first Decision on Costs, no certificate for 2 Counsel was granted.

7.That objection, as Haldanes submit in their reply, is wrong – see §§2 and 18 of my first Decision on Costs. It was in relation to the application to vary which I granted certificate for one counsel only.

8.The construction of the term “the indemnity basis” has been clearly set out in O.62 r.28(4A), as Haldanes have pointed out, which I apply.

9.The vast majority of Ince’s objections are bare assertions, comprising only one word of “Unreasonable” with no elaborations.

10.Their objection to Item D1 on “Preparation of Documents” is one of the exceptions which offers some elaborations, namely that P’s Judgment Summons contains only 3 pages and that the main contents of Asano/Aff7 only 15. That however is not the full picture. What Ince have not referred to are the PI Reports with more than 350 pages. I accept also what has been revealed in Haldanes’ reply, that the PI Reports originally comprised over 1,000 pages, and that a substantial amount of time has been spent on extracting from them the relevant pages.

11.I agree that the costs for drafting the statement of costs should not be allowed. The reasons tendered by Haldanes (the amount claimed, the span of time over which the relevant events took place, and the basis of the assessment) in my view do not justify the inclusion of those costs.

12.Given the overall nature of the 2 Summonses and the issues in dispute, I otherwise do not find any part of the costs claimed to be unreasonable.

13.After taking into the discount (as explained in §17 of my first Decision on Costs), I summarily assess the costs for P’s Judgment Summons and D1’s Relief Summons at the total sum of HK$980,000.

Costs in respect of the application to vary

14.For the application to vary, P claims costs in the total sum of HK$77,700, comprising counsel fee in the sum of HK$60,000, solicitors’ costs of 17,600 and HK$100 for manual work.

15.D1 objects, suggesting that only HK$20,000 for counsel and HK$8,250 for solicitors should be allowed.

16.Those suggested amounts are unreasonable, bearing in mind that D1 himself engaged Senior Counsel to resist the same.

17.I however regard that counsel fee in the amount of HK$60,000 is on the high side. I allow HK$45,000.

18.Taking a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the fee concerned at HK$62,000.

Conclusion

19.I summarily assess the costs as above, and otherwise make no further order for costs.

Statement of Costs and Reply to List of Objections by Haldanes, for the Plaintiff
    

List of Objections by Ince & Co, for the 1^st Defendant