China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Beijing Pilot Free Trade Zone Business Centre Sub Branch, Previously t/a China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Beijing Guanghua Road Branch v. China Kingho Energy Group Ltd and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 809/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 10 March 2025.

1. For background of the matter, I refer to my decision handed down on 20 February 2025 [1] . I adopt the same terms and abbreviations used therein.

Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 809/2024[2025] HKCFI 958
Court
High Court CFI
Date10 Mar 2025
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 809/2024

[2025] HKCFI 958

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 809 OF 2024

__________________

BETWEEN

China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Beijing Pilot Free Trade Zone Business Centre Sub Branch (中国光大银行股份有限公司北京自贸试验区商务中心区支行), previously t/a China Everbright Bank Co., Ltd. Beijing Guanghua Road Branch
(中国光大银行股份有限公司北京光华路支行)
Plaintiff
and
China Kingho Energy Group Limited (中国庆华能源集团有限公司) 1st Defendant
Huo, Qinghua (霍慶華) also known as Fok, Hing Wa 2nd Defendant
Zhou, Yaqin (周亚芹) also known as Zhou, Naren (周娜仁) 3rd Defendant
Huo, Rui (霍睿) also known as Fok, Ping Chau (霍屏舟) 4th Defendant

__________________

Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers
Dates of Statement of Costs and Reply by the Plaintiff: 22 January and 4 March 2025
Date of Statement of Objections by the 4th Defendant: 27 February 2025
Date of Decision on Costs: 10 March 2025

__________________

DECISION ON COSTS

__________________


1.For background of the matter, I refer to my decision handed down on 20 February 2025[1]. I adopt the same terms and abbreviations used therein.

2.I have considered P’s Statement of Costs, D4’s Statement of Objections, and P’s Reply.

3.P claims costs in the total amount of HK$347,448.

4.In my view:

(a) Items D1 (Preparation of Documents) and D2 (Perusing of Documents) for a total of 35 man-hours in the total sum of HK$149,700 are grossly excessive. I allow only HK$70,000;

(b) The un-particularized Item E of 22 man-hours of legal research in the total sum of HK$48,200 is excessive. I allow only HK$20,000;

(c) Counsel brief in the sum of HK$100,000 is in my view too high. This is particularly so when the issues involved were not new. I allow only HK$60,000.

5.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I assess P’s costs at HK$200,000.

6.I make no further costs order for this summary assessment.

  (Keith Yeung)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
  High Court

Statement of Costs and Reply by Chan Ching Man & Co, for the Plaintiff

Statement of Objections by Watson Farley & Williams LLP, for the 4th Defendant