Donghwa Leasing Co. v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship "Halla Liberty"

HCAJ000060A/1998

HCAJ60/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION ACTION NO.60 OF 1998

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

Admiralty Action in rem against :
the ship or vessel "HALLA LIBERTY" (South Korean Flag)

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 31 January 2001

Date of Judgment: 31 January 2001

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. I have before me an application for specific discovery by the intervener against the plaintiffs. This matter has been troubling the court time and again and there had been a large number of interlocutory applications which came before the court in this action.

2. The parties have, as of last night, agreed on the form of the discovery order to be made and have submitted to me this morning a draft minute of the order which, under paragraph 1, provides specifically for the filing of an affirmation relating to three categories of specific documents because the Third Supplementary List has now been filed by the plaintiffs.

3. What divides the parties today is the question of costs, in particular as to the quantum of the costs of the application, the plaintiffs, having admitted that they are liable for the costs of the intervener's application for specific discovery. In my view, the intervener is substantially correct in seeking its costs which it has particularized by way of a Costs Schedule put before me. The Costs Schedule includes work done both by Mr Chung, Senior Assistant Solicitor as well as by Mr Andrew Cutler, the partner. Of course the partner's charging rates are much higher than those of Mr Chung. It also includes fees for consulting Korean lawyers and for liaising with counsel.

4. The history of the matter had been outlined to me by both Mr Toms and by Mr Chung. I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the complicated history of this. It seems to me having regard to the long history of this unsolved Action that the costs set out in the Costs Schedule of the intervener are justified and, in my judgment, the proper costs of the application, the subject now, of gross sum assessment should be in the sum of $28,000, which includes the costs of today's hearing, and this is the amount which I have determined.

Representation:

Mr Peter Chung of Messrs Holman Fenwick & Willan, for the Intervener

Mr Toms of Messrs Sinclair Roche & Temperley, for the Plaintiffs