China Evergrande Group (in Liquidation) v. Pricewaterhousecoopers (A Firm) and Others

HCA 548/2024

[2026] HKCFI 5781

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 548 OF 2024

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

____________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

____________________________

Introduction

1.I refer to my Judgment handed down on 26 August 2026 (“the Judgment”).

2.In paragraph 113 of the Judgment, I made an Order Nisi (“the Order Nisi”) that the 3^rd Defendant (“International”) should pay to the Plaintiff the costs of and incidental to International’s strike-out application in the sum of $336,709.

3.Order 42 rule 56(6) of the Rules of the High Court provides as follows: -

“(6) Where a written decision is given pursuant to this rule the Court may make therein an order nisi as to costs and, unless an application has been made to vary that order, that order shall become absolute 14 days after the decision is pronounced.”

4.The period of 14 days from the date of the order expired at the end of 9 September 2026.

5.By a letter from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the solicitors acting for International, to the Court dated 9 September 2026, International applied for a variation of the Order Nisi with details of the challenged items of the Plaintiffs’ costs.  It also asked whether the Court considered that a Summons should be filed for the application.

6.I immediately directed that International should issue a Summons for the application.

7.On 15 September 2026, International did issue a Summons for variation of the Order Nisi for the reasons outlined in its List of Objections enclosed with the said letter of 9 September 2026.

8.On 23 September 2026, Karas So LLP, the solicitors acting for the Plaintiff, filed the Plaintiff’s Submissions in opposition to the Summons.

9.By a letter dated 28 September 2026. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher seeks leave from the Court to file International’s Reply Submissions to the Plaintiff’s Submissions enclosed therewith.

10.I now deal with the Summons and International’s application for leave to file its Reply Submissions.

The Parties’ Respective Cases

11.Basically, International challenges two aspects of the Plaintiff’s costs: -

(i)  The amount of photocopy charges.  The Plaintiff has claimed $2,326 and International agrees to only $759.

(ii)  The solicitors’ charges.  The Plaintiff has claimed $160,340 for attendances on client and counsel and $574,033 for professional work by three fee earners.  International only agrees to $116,250 for attendances and $249,888 for professional work.  It also argues that that the majority of the work should only have been done by two as opposed to three fee earners.

12.In short, International argues that the sum of $3,336,709 awarded by the Order Nisi should be reduced to the sum of $2,966,897.

13.The argument of the Plaintiff can be summarized as follows: -

(i)  As a result of International not having filed the Summons within the said 14-day period, the Order Nisi had become absolute by the end of 9 September 2026.  The application by the letter of 9 September 2026 should not be treated as an application under Order 42 rule 5B(6) and the Court cannot and/or should not grant any extension to International in all the circumstances.

(ii)  Regarding the question of quantum: -

(a)  The Plaintiff had already refrained from claiming the full copying charges.

(b)  As regards the costs incurred by the fee earners, they were reasonable and proportionate to the nature of the application which was a strike-out application in a claim for US$5.6 billion.  Furthermore, for most categories, only the costs for two fee earners were claimed.  It has not claimed the costs for the application for the ad hoc admission of its London counsel.  All the attendances were necessary for the preparation of the case.  It is also noted that International in its Statement of Costs has claimed fees for three fee earners for all categories, including their fees for dealing with the application of the ad hoc admission of its London counsel, totaling $4.6 million.”

14.On all the authorities cited, I am of the view that the Order Nisi had not become absolute, especially in view of the fact that the application by the letter of 9 September 2026 was within time.  It is to be noted that Order 42 rule 5B(6) itself does not specify that a summons must be filed within the 14-day period.  Even if I am wrong in the above, I am of the view that I do have power to grant an extension of time for International to make the application and I do so grant an extension of time, if necessary.

15.I have also decided to grant leave to International to file the Reply Submissions.

16.I now deal with the question of quantum.

17.First, regarding the photocopying charges, I am satisfied with the explanation by the Plaintiff that the costs are justified.  I will not make any reduction.

18.Secondly, regarding the challenge on the costs in respect of the attendances and the professional work, since I do not know exactly the details of the actual work done by the solicitors, I believe that the best guide lies in looking at how International has proposed to charge in its Statement of Costs.  Regarding attendances on client and counsel, the solicitors have charged for three fee earners a total of $2,143,522.85.  Regarding professional work, the solicitors have charged for three fee earners a total of $2,457,191.36.  Together, they total $4,600,714.42.  Comparing these with the charges by the Plaintiff’s solicitors in the sums of $160,340 and $574,033 which total $734,373, the latter are quite modest indeed.

Disposition

19.In all the above circumstances., I have decided to dismiss International’s Summons for variation of the Order Nisi and the same is made absolute.

20.Regarding the costs of and incidental to the Summons, the Plaintiff has claimed the sum of $33,602 which I think is also reasonable.

21.I therefore make an order nisi that the costs of and incidental to the Summons be paid by International to the Plaintiff in the sum of $33,602.

Messrs Karas So LLP, for the Plaintiff

Messrs Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, for the 3^rd Defendant