Lam Po Yee v. Yu Shui Mui
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2092/2024 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 September 2025.
1. I refer to my Decision handed down on 14 July 2025. I refer to the costs order nisi I made at §51, that P shall bear the costs of and occasioned by the SC Summons, both here and below, with certificate for counsel, to be summarily assessed.
Cited by 2 cases
|
HCA 2092/2024 [2025] HKCFI 4356 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2092 OF 2024 __________________
__________________
__________________________ DECISION ON COSTS __________________________ 1.I refer to my Decision handed down on 14 July 2025. I refer to the costs order nisi I made at §51, that P shall bear the costs of and occasioned by the SC Summons, both here and below, with certificate for counsel, to be summarily assessed. 2.I have considered D’s 2 Statements of Costs, one of 7 April 2025 regarding the substantive hearing before Master Hew on 8 April 2025 (“Statement of Costs/Hearing”), and the other of 28 July 2025 regarding the appeal (“Statement of Costs/Appeal”), P’s 2 Statements of Objections both of 20 August 2025, and D’s Reply of 27 August 2025. Statement of Costs/Hearing 3.For A4 (Fee Earners’ Rate), I am of the view that the involvement of an experienced partner in the conduct of D’s case is reasonable. I do not accept P’s suggestion that only a solicitor with 2 years PQE needed to be involved. An experienced principal was indeed involved in the conduct of P’s case. 4.For B (Manual Work), the total claimed amount of HK$4,026 is reasonable. 5.For C (Communications etc), I am of the view that the total number of hours of 6.5 hours in the total amount of HK$23,300 are excessive. I allow only HK$12,000. 6.For D1 and D2 (Professional Work – Preparation and Perusal of Documents), I am of the view that the total number of hours of 7 hours in the total amount of HK$29,400 are excessive. This is particularly so when counsel was engaged to settle documents. I allow only HK$15,000. 7.For E (Counsel), engagement of counsel for the 3-minute hearing on 7 February 2025 is in my view unreasonable. I reduce E1(1) by HK$10,000. 8.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$110,000. Statement of Costs/Appeal 9.For A4 (Fee Earners’ Rate), I am of the view that the involvement of an experienced partner, a solicitor admitted in 2024 and a legal executive are reasonable. 10.Manual Work under B is agreed. 11.In respect of C (Communications etc), I refer to section E of my Decision on “Events after the substantive hearing of the SC Summons”. Given the occurrence of those matters set out therein, I am of the view that the total number of time (12 hours) and costs (HK$42,400) are reasonable. 12.For D1 and D2 (Professional Work – Preparation and Perusal of Documents), despite the occurrence of those matters set out in section E of my Decision, I am of the view that the total number of hours of 6 hours in the total amount of HK$18,800 are excessive. I allow only HK$10,000. 13.For E (Counsel), I am of the view that Mr Siu’s brief of HK$80,000 is reasonable. 14.Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the costs at HK$151,000.
Statements of Objections by LIMS Solicitors, for the Plaintiff Statements of Costs and Reply by Tung, Ng, Tse & Lam, for the Defendant |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2092/2024