|
HCA 1073/2021
[2024] HKCFI 3693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 1073 OF 2021
________________________
BETWEEN
|
CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES
INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LIMITED
(興證國際證券有限公司) |
Plaintiff |
|
and |
|
|
LOU YI (羅毅) |
Defendant |
________________________
| Before: |
Hon K Yeung J in Chambers |
|
Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply
by the Defendant:
|
15 November and
5 December 2024 |
Date of Statement of Objections
by the Plaintiff:
|
29 November 2024 |
|
Date of Decision on Costs:
|
31 December 2024 |
________________________
DECISION ON COSTS(2)
________________________
1.I refer to my Decision and Decision on Costs handed down respectively on 16 August and 12 November 2024. I adopt the same terms used therein.
2.I have considered D’s Statement of Costs of 15 November 2024, P’s Statement of Objections of 29 November 2024, and D’s Reply of 5 December 2024.
3.In respect of the Order 14 application:
(a) I accept that the total amount under Items B to D5 (reduced from $53,885 in the Statement of Costs to $46,422 in the Reply) is overall reasonable;
(b) In answer to P’s objection, counsel’s fee note has been produced. I allow the brief in the sum of $100,000;
(c) Adopting a broad brush approach, I round up the total costs under this head to $146,000.
4.In respect of the Order 14 Appeal:
(a) For Items B to D5, the total costs, even in the reduced amount of $224,378 as stated in the Reply, is in my view too high. I summarily assess the total amount at $150,000;
(b) In respect of Item E1 in relation to the brief to counsel for the stay application, P objects on the basis that no certificate for counsel was granted. In reply, D says “Pursuant to the Order of Deputy High Court K.C. Chan made on 16th May 2024, it was ordered that, inter alia the costs of the stay of proceedings be in the cause of the Appeal. Therefore the certificate for counsel is covered in the hearing on 16.05.2024”. I do not understand that reply. If no certificate for counsel was sought or granted, the fact that the costs of that application was to be costs in the cause of the appeal does not necessarily mean that “the certificate for counsel is covered”. I assess Item E1 at $40,000;
(c) In answer to P’s objections, counsel’s fee notes have been produced. I allow the briefs in the total sum of $400,000;
(d) Adopting a broad brush approach, I assess the total costs under this head at $590,000.
5.I summarily assess the costs as above accordingly.
|
(Keith Yeung) |
|
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court |
|