Li Man Tak and Another v. Lam Yat Ping and Another

HCA004497/2000

HCA4497/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.4497 OF 2000

-------------------------

------------------------

Coram: Hon Waung J in Court

Dates of Hearing: 23 October 2000

Date of Judgment: 23 October 2000

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. This is an application by the plaintiffs for costs ordered by me earlier resulting from the defendants making an application to substantially amend their pleadings. As a result of the amendment which I have allowed, it would be necessary for the plaintiffs to amend their Reply and to consider their position, including whether it would be necessary to put in further witness statements. The case has therefore been adjourned until Thursday, 26 October 2000, when the trial would resume.

2. I have ordered the costs of and occasioned by the amendment and thrown away as a result of the amendment to be given to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have put before me, very neatly on one page, three items which they suggested should be recoverable costs under my order :

			$
(1)	Costs alleged to be thrown away as a result of the plaintiffs' opening their case and work done on 19 October 2000 :
	(a)	Barrister's cost	40,000
	(b)	Solicitor of 10 years' seniority for one hour at $4,000/hour	4,000
(2)	Costs of today, 23 October 2000 :
	(a)	Barrister's cost	40,000
	(b)	Solicitor of 10 years' seniority for six hours at $4,000/hour	24,000
		(uncontested)
(3)	Costs of 25 October 2000 :
	(a)	Barrister's cost	40,000
	(b)	Solicitor of 10 years' seniority for two hours at $4,000/hour	8,000
		Total :	$156,000

3. In my view, so far as the first day is concerned, i.e. the cost alleged to be thrown away as a result of the wasted plaintiffs' opening, I think there is some justification in Mr Pow's submission that it is not wholly thrown away. I would allow half of that, i.e. $22,000. Item (2) is not contested and therefore, I would allow the whole of item (2), i.e. $64,000. In relation to item (3), Mr Pow made the point that it is a little bit premature today because we do not know what work is going to be done on Wednesday, 25 October. I think, doing the best I can and noting the nature of the case, that the whole day would be devoted to doing what is necessary in relation to meeting and answering the amendment made by the defendants. So I would allow the whole of that. The costs, therefore, that I would allow is :

$156,000 - $22,000 = $134,000

As I have indicated earlier, I would give 90% of the $134,000. So the plaintiffs will receive by way of gross sum assessment the sum of $120,600, to be paid forthwith.

Representation:

Mr Aarif Barma & Mr Sanjay Sakhrani, instructed by Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the Plaintiffs

Mr Jason Pow, instructed by Messrs David Lo & Partners, for the Defendant