Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA000618D/1997

HCA618/1997

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.618 OF 1997

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

BETWEEN
	LO WO	1st Plaintiff
	LO TAI	2nd Plaintiff
	LO LAN	3rd Plaintiff

	AND

	CHEUNG CHAN KA, JOSEPH (also known as CHEUNG CHAN KA)	1st Defendant
	BOND STAR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED	2nd Defendant

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Court

Date of Hearing: 9 June 2000

Date of Judgment: 9 June 2000

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is a gross sum assessment under Order 62, rule 9(4)(b) of the Rules of the High Court. The plaintiffs, at the end of the trial, after they had succeeded against both the 1st and 2nd defendants, had asked, in relation to the costs of the trial, that there would be gross sum assessment in lieu of taxation.

2. A Schedule has been put before me, backed up by a very detailed bill of costs of the plaintiffs' costs. I have looked at the Schedule and it seems to me that in relation to the disbursements and profit cost (from pages 1 to 4), that they are totally reasonable having regard to the nature of the case and the fact that if it had gone to taxation, I would have ordered costs on a full indemnity basis. So I would allow it in full.

3. Coming to the calculations at the end of page 5 of the Schedule, I would allow in full (A), (B), (C) and (D). In relation to (E), I would only allow $2,800 out of the two items therein. So therefore from the total of $1,266,400 I would deduct the figure of $14,800, that is in relation to item (E). The calculation therefore would be $1,251,200.

4. From that sum, I would further deduct $50,000, this represents an adjustment made in relation to firstly, the costs that have been awarded against the plaintiffs in respect of the application for amendment that wasted half an hour on 28 September 1999 and took up no time at all on 29 September 1999, but no doubt the two defendants would have to consider the nature of the amendment that was put to them. I also take into account, in deducting the $50,000, some of the minor time that had been wasted in the course of the trial, but these are part and parcel of what one would normally expect in a major trial such as this, especially when the plaintiffs had considerable difficulty in respect of client who is elderly from China and in a very poor condition. So I think that would do justice to the case.

5. The final gross sum assessment made by me is, therefore, the figure of $1,201,200, namely the deduction of $50,000 from the aforesaid figure earlier of $1,251,200. So my gross sum assessment is $1,201,200, which is to be paid immediately. But there should be a deduction from this sum in relation to the two sums which I have ordered to be returned by the plaintiffs to the 2nd defendant. These two sums are : $50,000 with interest of 2% above prime from 24 August 1993, and $100,000 with interest at 2% above prime from 6 January 1994 which must be deducted from the gross sum assessment that is payable.