Chen Hongqing v. Liu Yiu Keung Stephen and Others

HCA 1699/2019

[2025] HKCFI 5033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1699 OF 2019

__________________

BETWEEN

(by Original Action)

AND BETWEEN

(by Counterclaim)

AND BETWEEN

(by Counterclaim)

__________________

__________________

DECISION ON COSTS

__________________

The costs order nisi

1.I refer to my Decision handed down on 21 August 2025. At §49 thereof, I made a costs order nisi that Chen HQ shall bear the costs of the Appeal and the Striking Out Application, with certificate for 2 counsel for both the SHDs and Jinan Group, to be summarily assessed on the papers.

2.Pursuant to directions, Stephenson Harwood and Linklaters respectively for SHDs and Jinan Group have lodged their Statements of Costs and Replies (“SHD/SC”, “SHD/Reply”, “Jinan/SC” and “Jinan /Reply”). Gallant for Chen HQ have lodged 2 Statements of Objections, one against each (“CHQ/SHD” and “CHQ/Jinan”). I have considered them.

Costs claimed by SHDs

3.In SHD/SC, SHDs claim costs and disbursements in the total sum of HK$1,015,674.

4.The main objection raised on behalf of Chen HQ is that as the Appeal is in the nature of a hearing de-novo, the sums claimed by SHDs under various items are excessive. He also objects to the amount of the counsel fees charged.

5.Stephenson Harwood have in SHD/Reply made some concessions to narrow the issue. They have reduced the costs claimed for some of the items. They maintain that counsel fees should be allowed in full.

6.I consider the reduced amounts under Items D1 (Professional Work) and D2 (Perusal of Documents) reasonable. I allow counsel fees in full (save part of those incurred for the 17 April 2025 hearing, which were reserved and conceded).

7.Adopting a broad brush approach, I assess SHDs’ costs at HK$950,000.

Jinan Group’s costs

8.In Jinan/SC, Jinan Group claims costs and disbursements in the total sum of HK$1,342,638.50.

9.I have considered CHQ/Jiann:

(a)  I agree that the hourly rates claimed by Linklaters for their Partner (HK$12,240 subsequently increased to HK$12,985), Managing Associate (HK$8,264 subsequently increased to HK$10,413), Associate (HK$6,743) and Trainee (HK$3,575) are all excessive. I accept Gallant’s objections and suggestions that the Solicitor Rates for Taxation (Party and Party Basis) should be adopted;

(b)  I agree that Items C (Communication including conferences, telephone calls, letters and emails, for HK$367,205.60) and D (Professional work, for HK$430,052.90) are excessive and unreasonable. This is particularly so given the facts that 2 counsel have been engaged, and that the Striking Out Application was not taken out by Jinan Group but by the SHDs. The high costs are also the results of the high hourly rates adopted, which I do not allow;

(c)  Whilst Linklaters have in Jinan/Reply made some concessions under Items C and D, I am the of view that the conceded sums remain unreasonable;

(d)  For Item C, I allow only HK$120,000. For Item D, I allow only HK$150,000;

(e)  I allow counsel fees claimed.

10.Adopting a broad brush approach, I assess Jinan Group’s costs at HK$810,000.

Statement of Objections by Gallant, for the Plaintiff

Statement of Costs and Reply by Stephenson Harwood, for the SH Defendants (SHDs)

Statement of Costs and Reply by Linklaters, for the Jinan Group