Ahs Device Hongkong Ltd v. Vt Zero Ltd

HCA 197/2022

[2023] HKCFI 1823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 197 OF 2022

__________________

__________________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

1.By my Decision handed down on 9 June 2023[1], I dismiss P’s Summons. I made a costs order nisi against P, which has become absolute in the absence of any application for variation.

2.I have considered parties’ respective Statement of Costs, Objections and Reply. 

3.Despite the amount involved, the application is not complicated, whether on law or facts. 

4.In my view, C1 (16 hours on “Attendance on client”), D1 (15 hours on “Preparation of Documents”) and D2 (32 hours for “Perusal of Documents”) are too high.

5.There are also duplications in work.

6.E1 (brief of HK$75,000 for hearing on 16 December 2022) is in my view reasonable.  It was a hearing before the Summons Judge on a Summons Friday morning.  But with that brief having been charged, the brief of HK$160,000 for the substantive hearing is in my view too high, which reasonable fee I assess at HK$100,000.

7.I note also the other concessions made in the Reply.

8.Adopting a broad brush approach, I assess the costs at HK$500,000.

9.I make no further order as to costs in respect of this exercise.

Statement of Costs and Reply by Hau, Lau, Li & Yeung, for the Defendant

Statement of Objections by YTL LLP, for the Plaintiff