Right Honour Group Ltd v. Urban Entertainment Ltd t/a Tikitiki Bowling Bar

HCMP 2078/2022

[2024] HKCFI 995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2078 OF 2022

____________________

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________

1.For background of the matters, I refer to my Decision handed down on 28 November 2023[1]. I adopt the same terms and abbreviations used therein.

2.By Order made on 11 March 2024, this Court granted Urban Entertainment leave to withdraw the 4/F Centro PO Appeal and the 4/F Centro Stay Appeal.  I accordingly dismissed the appeals.  I further ordered that the costs of and occasioned by the withdrawal and dismissal of the appeals be to Right Honour on a party-and-party basis, with certificate for two counsel (when two counsel are involved), to be summarily assessed on the papers.

3.Right Honour has since filed its Statement of Costs, seeking costs in the total amount of HK$1,008,481.

4.Urban Entertainment has also filed its Statement of Objections. Objections have only been raised in respect of 5 items.  The objections are not accepted by Right Honour in its Reply.

5.I have considered the aforesaid documents.

6.In respect of Items D5 and D7, I do not accept Urban Entertainment’s objections that it was unnecessary for legal advisers of Right Honour to study the bundles and submissions filed in HCMP 1598.  I have previously ordered that the bundles and the submissions in both actions be served interchangeably.  The incurrence of time and costs on perusal of the same is reasonable.  The time incurred (a total of 13 hours by one fee earner) is also in my view reasonable.

7.In respect of Item D6, it is in my view reasonable for Right Honour’s solicitors to read senior counsel’s submissions and authorities.  8 hours each by 2 fee earners are however in my view excessive.  I summarily assess the reasonable time at 4 hours each.

8.In respect E1 and E2, I do not find counsel’s fees to be unreasonable, bearing in mind the nature and worth of the appeals involved.

9.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs involved at HK$970,000.

10.I otherwise make no further order on costs. 

Statement of Costs and Reply by K.C. Ho & Fong, for the Plaintiff

Statement of Objections by Georgiou Payne Stewien LLP, for the Defendant