Lee Chick Choi v. The Hong Kong Golf Club

DCEO 11/2019

[2023] HKDC 1672

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES ACTION NO 11 OF 2019

------------------------

------------------------

------------------------------------------------

DECISION
(SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS)

------------------------------------------------

1.Pursuant to §§5.5 and 5.6 of my decision dated 11 October 2023:

(1)  on 25 October 2023, the Respondent re-lodged its Skeleton Bills of Costs, with an explanatory note justifying its departure from the District Court rates circulated by the Law Society of Hong Kong;

(2)  on 7 November 2023, the Claimant lodged his Statement of Objections.

2.The Statement of Objections seeks to argue that I should not have ordered costs on an indemnity basis in respect of the Leave Application and the Stay Application. Any such argument, if pursued, should be by way of an appeal. The Claimant otherwise makes no submission on the quantum of the costs claimed by the Respondent.

3.I have considered the Respondent’s justification for departing from the District Court rates circulated by the Law Society of Hong Kong (“Circulated Rates”). Although costs were ordered on an indemnity basis in respect of the Leave Application and the Stay Application, the Respondent has confirmed that the departure from the Circulated Rates is only sought in respect of the Leave Application. The following is a comparison between the rates claimed and the Circulated Rates:

Fee Earner	Claimed Rate	Circulated Rate	Difference
JWCT	HK$8,060	HK$3,860	208%
LIJK	HK$5,480	HK$2,130	257%
CHKL	HK$2,320	HK$1,130	205%

4.As pointed out by the Respondent, the Circulated Rates were last updated in 2017 (with an effective date of 1 January 2018). The present situation is different from that faced by Chan PJ at David John Kennedy v Kelly Cheng & Anor [2012] HKCFA 64 §31 where the circulated rates in that case were plainly out of date and might not be apt to be treated as starting figures (the then circulated rates had not been adjusted for 15 years).

5.Whilst I accept that it was reasonable for the Respondent to take the Leave Application seriously, it seems to me that the arguments involved were not complex. Although the materials filed by the Claimant was not insubstantial, in many instances, counsel for Respondent argued that the Claimant’s contentions lacked merits to the extent they could be dealt with by some “knock-out” points. However, this has to be balanced against the fact that it was the Claimant’s decision to put in the material which he did, which the Respondent was driven to deal with.

6.I note also that, according to the current Circulated Rates, the difference between High Court and District Court is a factor of approximately 1.5 (eg for a solicitor over 15 years, the High Court rate is HK$5,800 and the District Court rate is $3,860). Thus, there is a substantial difference between the starting positions for taxation in the High Court and District Court. At David John Kennedy §§37 to 38 and 41, the exercise carried out by Chan PJ plainly took into account the circulated rates (even in that case outdated). In any event, as stated above, the “outdated” point does not apply with the same rigour in the present case.

7.I am therefore not minded to allow the rates claimed by the Respondent in respect of the Leave Application. Using the Circulated Rates as a starting point, and given the fact that the costs are to be paid on an indemnity basis, I would allow hourly rates of HK$5,200, HK$3,500 and HK$1,400 respectively for JWCT, LIJK and CHKL. See, for example, Chung Yan Wing v Ko Hoi Si [2023] HKDC 643 §7.

8.Taking a broad-brush approach, and adopting the rates set out in the preceding paragraph in respect of the Leave Application, I assess the various costs orders as follows. I have applied discounts to (1) the attendance and professional work claimed by the Respondent’s solicitors in view of the (lack of) complexity and (2) counsel fees:

(1)  in respect of the Variation Application (party and party basis), in the sum of HK$45,000 (reduced from HK$85,956);

(2)  in respect of the Stay Application (indemnity basis), in the sum of HK$20,000 (reduced from HK$46,829);

(3)  in respect of the Leave Application (indemnity basis), in the sum of HK$140,000 (reduced from HK$239,336).

The Claimant appears in person

Mr Martin Kok, instructed by Mayer Brown, for the Respondent