Chan Hung Kit v. Tung Lai Shan
Read the full judgment text of HCCA 4712/2020 on BabelCite. This HCCA judgment was delivered on 20 February 2023.
1. I refer to my decision handed down on 1 February 2023 [1] and the costs order made therein.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case
|
HCCA 4712/2020 [2023] HKCFI 456 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CAVEAT NO 4712 OF 2020 __________________
__________________
____________________ DECISION ON COSTS ____________________ 1.I refer to my decision handed down on 1 February 2023[1] and the costs order made therein. 2.I have now considered the Statement of Costs since filed by the PW, the List of Objections by the Caveator, and the Reply by the PW. 3.If all the objections made by the Caveator were upheld, the net costs would only be HK$42,950. That amount is in my view entirely unrealistic. 4.On the other hand, I accept the objections that part of the costs incurred on the Summons can be re-used despite leave having been granted to the Caveator to rely on the affirmation of Cheng Ka Wai. The conduct of PW’s case would not be fundamentally changed thereby. 5.Specifically in respect of counsel fees, the brief for the Summons would not all be wasted, which I assess for this exercise at HK$100,000. In relation to counsel fee for the Aff Summons, HK$60,000 is in my view too high, given the fact that counsel was otherwise familiar with the facts of the case. I assess counsel fee for the Aff Summons at HK$25,000. 6.Taking a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the total costs at HK$280,000.
Statement of Costs and Reply by Ernest Li & Co, for the Person Warning List of Objections by Kelvin Cheung & Co, for the Caveator |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCCA 4712/2020