Easy Fortune Property Ltd v. Yung Chun Him

Read the full judgment text of CACV 109/2024 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 November 2024.

1. On 27 August 2024, this Court (Chu VP and Cheung JA) handed down the decision ( [2024] HKCA 817 ) ordering that the plaintiff is to have costs of the defendant’s two applications for 1) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; and for 2) interim stay of execution of our decision of 15 July 2024 to be summarily assessed (‘two applications’). The plaintiff has lodged its statement of costs for this purpose, but the defendant has not filed his list of objections despite our direction.

Cited by 3 cases · Cites 2 cases

Case No.CACV 109/2024[2024] HKCA 1102
Court
Court of Appeal
Date26 Nov 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV 109/2024, [2024] HKCA 1102

On Appeal From [2024] HKCFI 615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1484 OF 2014)

________________________

BETWEEN

  EASY FORTUNE PROPERTY LIMITED Plaintiff
  and  
  YUNG CHUN HIM (翁晉謙) Defendant

________________________

Before : Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court
Date of Decision : 26 November 2024

_________________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_________________________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Summary Assessment of Costs) :

1.On 27 August 2024, this Court (Chu VP and Cheung JA) handed down the decision ([2024] HKCA 817) ordering that the plaintiff is to have costs of the defendant’s two applications for 1) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; and for 2) interim stay of execution of our decision of 15 July 2024 to be summarily assessed (‘two applications’). The plaintiff has lodged its statement of costs for this purpose, but the defendant has not filed his list of objections despite our direction.

2.The plaintiff claimed a total sum of $92,271 of which $15,000 is counsel fee and the balance represents solicitors’ costs and disbursements.

3.In assessing the quantum of the plaintiff’s costs for dealing with the defendant’s two applications, we have taken into account the following :

1)  Part C

(1)  The applications are straightforward. The hours of attendance on client and attendance on court are excessive.

2)  Part D

(1)  D1 in respect of solicitors’ preparation of statement of costs is generally not allowed. According to Practice Direction 14.3 at [13], the Court will generally not grant costs for gathering information and drafting of statement of costs for summary assessment.

(2)  D2 in respect of the hours of solicitors’ perusal of documents are excessive.

4.Having regard to the above considerations, and taking a broad brush approach, we have assessed the plaintiff’s summary assessment of costs for the defendant’s two applications at $38,000, inclusive of counsel fee at $15,000.

(Carlye Chu)
Vice-President
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal

Henry Fok & Co for the Plaintiff

Defendant, unrepresented, acting in person