Wong Lui v. A, Xiabuzha and Another

HCAP 18/2021

[2023] HKCFI 1532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE ACTION NO 18 OF 2021

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________

DECISION ON COSTS

__________________

1.For reasons set out in my Decision handed down on 19 April 2023[1] (the “Decision”), I ordered and directed, at §45 thereof, inter alia, that:

“(a) Mr Chin Choon Onn and Mr Jong Yat Kit of PwC HK be granted letters of administration pendente lite over the Estate of the Deceased and accordingly be appointed as administrators pendente lite of the Estate of the Deceased (the ‘Administrators Pendente Lite’);

(b) The Administrators Pendente Lite be directed and authorised to collect in and protect the Estate of the Deceased;

(c) Costs in relation to and incidental to the appointment of the Administrators Pendente Lite be paid out of the Estate in the first instance, but shall be reserved as to whether any party(ies) shall bear some or all of the costs of or incidental to such appointment.”

2.At §46 of the Decision, I made a costs order nisi that “In respect of costs of this application … save the costs of the hearing of 16 March 2023 which should be borne by P, balance of the costs be dealt with in accordance with the directions at §45(c) above, to be summarily assessed, with certificate for one counsel.”

3.I have read parties’ respective submissions on costs.

4.Ds’ interpretation of §45(c) is not correct. §45(c) does not relate only to costs in relation to the appointment of Administrators Pendente Lite “as and when the appointment has been made (i.e. after the 16 March 2023 hearing”, as contended for at §2 of Ds’ reply submissions. §§45(c) and 46 of the Decision read together make it clear that, in respect of the costs of the application by the Summons, P shall bear only the costs of the hearing of 16 March 2023, the balance of which should be dealt with in accordance with the directions at §45(c).

5.On the other hand, I do not accept P’s contentions that all costs under Items B, C, and D1 to D3 should be taxed off. Part of them in my view are to be attributed to the 16 March 2023 hearing. Adopting a broad brush approach, I attribute 30% of those costs to the hearing (the “Attribution Percentage”).

6.In my view:

(a)  Items B1 and B2 (total at HK$2,865) are reasonable;

(b)  Items C1 to C3 (in particular C3) are excessive. I assess the total of Item C at HK$55,000;

(c)  Items D1 to D3 are excessive. I assess the total of those Items at HK$30,000;

(d)  Item D4 is reasonable;

(e)  Counsel fee is excessive, especially after concession on the question of grant. I assess it at HK$120,000.

7.As said, I adopt the Attribution Percentage of 30%.

8.The costs of the hearing of 16 March 2023 is therefore assessed at (HK$2,865 + HK$55,000 + HK$30,000) x 30% + HK$17,400 + HK$120,000, which I round off at HK$163,800.

9.I make no further costs order in respect of this summary assessment.

Statement of Costs and Reply by Cheng & Co, for the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants

Statement of Objection by Fan & Co, for the Plaintiff