Zhang Yongping v. Gahood Holding Company Ltd and Others

HCA 1480/2025

[2026] HKCFI 5126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1480 OF 2025

____________

____________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.By a Consent Order dated 30 July 2026, I granted leave to UOB to be joined as Intervener in these proceedings and varied the Injunction Order of Queenie Au-Yeung J dated 15 August 2025.  By its paragraph 8, the Consent Order directed that the Plaintiff pay UOB costs’ of the underlying Summons and the Consent Summons on an indemnity basis with the amount to be summarily assessed on paper.  The parties not having been able to agree on UOB’s costs, this is my summary assessment of such costs.

2.UOB claims indemnity costs of HK$358,396.  The Plaintiff complains that, the matter having been straightforward, UOB should be entitled to no more than HK$29,896.

3.In my view, the amount claimed by UOB is excessive.  An order for the payment of costs on an indemnity basis does not mean that a party is entitled to claim costs that are duplicative, unnecessary or unreasonable.  On the other hand, the amount suggested by the Plaintiff is only minimal.  It is unlikely to be reflective of UOB’s costs.

4.UOB seeks HK$4,598 for “Manual Work,” including the photocopying of over 2,000 pages.  I am prepared to accept such amount as reasonable.

5.UOB engaged a solicitor admitted in 2008 at a rate of HK$6,800 per hour.  It claims HK$159,800 for “Communications Including Conferences, Telephone Calls and Letters” by its solicitor. That comprises (a) 10 hours (HK$68,000) for “Attendance on client,”  (b) 8.25 hours (HK$56,100) for “Attendance on the other side,” (c) 5 hours (HK$34,000) for “Attendance on counsel” and (d) 0.25 hours (HK$1,700) for “Attendance on court”.  It seems to me that items (a), (b) and (c) are excessive, given the straightforward nature of the application.  I would consequently only allow half of the amounts claimed for those items, that is, HK$34,000, HK$28,050 and HK$17,000 respectively, for a total of HK$79,050.  I allow item (d) in full.  The claim for HK$159,800 is therefore reduced to HK$80,750.

6.UOB applies for HK$88,400 in respect of “Professional Work”.  That comprises (a) 8 hours (HK$54,400) for “Preparation/Revision of Documents: (Notice to Act, Summons, 2 Affirmations, Consent Summons, Order, Brief to Counsel and exhibits totalling 295 pages)” and (b) 5 hours (HK$34,000) for “Perusal of Documents: (Writ of Summons, Injunction Order, Skeleton Submissions, List of Authorities totalling 164 pages)”.  It seems to me that item (b) will have been substantially duplicative of the work under item (a).  I will therefore allow item (a) in full and only half of item (b) (that is, HK$17,000).  The claim for HK$88,400 is therefore reduced to HK$71,400.

7.UOB’s solicitor instructed counsel of 5 years’ experience for the case.  Counsel’s charges (inclusive of a brief delivered prior to the parties’ Consent Summons) amount to HK$105,000.  I allow the latter amount in full as a disbursement.

8.UOB lastly claims “Other Disbursements” covering land search, company search and travelling fees and amounting to HK$598. I allow that amount in full.

9.By reason of the foregoing, UOB’s costs are assessed on an indemnity basis at HK$262,346. That is about 73.2% of the HK$358,396 sought by UOB.

King & Wood for the Plaintiff

Sit, Fung, Kwong & Shum for the Intervener