Lee's Chicken Ltd and Another v. Lee's Chicken (Sai Wan Ho) Ltd and Others

Case No.HCIP 40/2022[2023] HKCFI 446

Court

High Court CFI

Date15 Nov 2022

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCIP 40/2022

[2023] HKCFI 446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 40 OF 2022

________________________

BETWEEN

	LEE’S CHICKEN LIMITED	1^st Plaintiff
	KWON DONGHYUN	2^nd Plaintiff
	and
	LEE’S CHICKEN (SAI WAN HO) LIMITED	1^st Defendant
	CHEUNG’S CATERING SERVICES LIMITED (張氏餐飲服務有限公司)	2^nd Defendant
	CHEUNG’S CATERING SERVICES (TSUEN WAN) LIMITED (張氏餐飲服務(荃灣)有限公司)	3^rd Defendant
	CHEUNG YAN KI (張恩琪)	4^th Defendant
	AU YEUNG CHI MAN (歐陽志文)	5^th Defendant

________________________

Before:

Hon Lok J in Chambers

Date of Bill of Costs:	15 November 2022
Date of List of Objection:	17 November 2022
Date of Summary Assessment on Costs:	17 February 2023

______________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT ON COSTS

______________________________

1.This is the summary assessment of costs incurred by the 5^th Defendant in respect of his application to strike out the Plaintiffs’ claim against him (“the Application”).

2.The 5^th Defendant claims a total sum of $136,852 for his costs.

3.The Application was made on a pleading point without the filing of supporting affirmation. The Application was taken out on 16 September 2022 and was listed for a 3 minutes’ hearing on 28 October 2022. However, the Plaintiffs on 19 October 2022 agreed to adjourn the hearing on 28 October 2022. On 27 October 2022, the parties agreed for the amendments of the Statement of Claim and for the 5^th Defendant to withdraw the Application with costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs to be assessed on a summary basis.

4.In my judgment, the sum claimed by the 5^th Defendant is excessive. I have taken into account the explanation given by the 5^th Defendant’s legal representatives that they still need to take proper instructions from their client for the preparation of the Application. Yet, the Application was not a complicated one. It involved a pleading point which should not have required the taking of detailed instructions. Further, there was no actual hearing for the Application, and so the sum claimed by the 5^th Defendant is excessive.

5.In so far as counsel’s fee is concerned, the first call-over hearing on 28 October 2022 also served as a direction hearing for the whole case. I agree that engagement of counsel was reasonable taking into account the then progress of the case. Yet the time spent on the conference was excessive.

6.On the whole, I summarily assess the 5^th Defendant’s costs in the total sum of $80,000.

	(David Lok)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

Cheung & Liu, for the Plaintiffs

Eva Wong & Co., for the 5^th Defendant