Alexina Investments Ltd and Another v. Keysberg Ltd and Others

HCA006359F/1992

HCA6359/1992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.6359 OF 1992

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

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 17 March 2004

Date of Judgment: 17 March 2004

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.This is a gross sum assessment which I have this morning directed should be heard notwithstanding the application of the defendants that it should be deferred. The gross sum assessment covers the costs of the trial of the plaintiffs and of the third party for the period from 1 November 2003 up to the end of the trial and therefore it covers also a period of preparation leading to the trial. I make this point clear so that the taxing master, when he is doing the taxation of the whole action, would tax the bill of the various parties up to the end of October 2003 to ensure that there is no duplication.

2.Having provided the framework of the time scale of what the costs covered, I now come to deal with the various matters that had been canvassed. My broad approach, following the practice I have adopted over a number of years covering many gross sum assessments, is to do it on a broad basis without going into a great deal of detail. Obviously what is important is who was the person handling the matter - his seniority, his unit cost - to make sure that those aspects fall within what I will call the broad range for a case of that type. Counsel's fees generally is a little bit less controversial.

3.Let me first start by saying that in my view this has been a heavy piece of litigation. It has not been easy. It has been the subject of huge number of disputes and caused the court to make repeated rulings during the trial. The presence of Mr Griffiths in the trial is perhaps a good indication that this is not an easy case. It is to be noted that on the defendants' side, there were three counsel with a very senior solicitor in the form of Ms Liang's instructing. Against the defendants, the plaintiffs and the third party was each represented by junior counsel although Mr Burns for the plaintiffs is well known to be a very experienced litigator. So it is in that context of a heavy litigation requiring a heavy team that I need to look at the schedule of costs claimed by the plaintiffs and the third party.

4.The total amount claimed by the plaintiffs is $2,185,000. The total amount claimed by the third party is $1,496,000. The third party, of course, does not need to do as much during the trial as the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were doing most of the running.

5.The first question I would ask is that having regard to the necessity to be properly represented (and the plaintiffs as well as the third party might well be represented by leading counsel and therefore each side's total bill would have been much higher), was each of the bills very much out of line with what I would have expected having regard to my considerable exposure to bills from commercial firms in relation to heavy commercial action? I believe on the whole they are not too far outside the range. It could be said that some of the details of the figures, for example, Mr Laracy's fee of $3,000 per hour might be a little bit high because of his limited seniority in Hong Kong, and it might even be said that counsel's fees on some particular days might have been somewhat unjustified. On the whole I am of the view that the fees are about right except in some minor respects.

6.I therefore propose, taking the broad approach, that so far as the plaintiffs' total bill is concerned to assess it at the figure of $1,950,000. I would take away from that $50,000 that is a figure for the uplift in relation to the extra work that have been done by Ms Liang for the preparation of the trial bundles. There is therefore a setting-off of $50,000. So the total sum I award to the plaintiffs for the trial from 1 November is $1,900,000.

7.In relation to the third party's costs, again adopting the same approach, and I suspect there may be more room for errors, it seems to me that the broad figure that I should assess for the third party's solicitors is a sum of $1,350,000. It has been agreed that those two sums (inclusive of the costs of today's argument for gross sum assessment) will be paid immediately by the defendants into court into two separate interest-bearing accounts.

8.In respect of the gross sum assessment for this morning's hearing in relation to the defendants' application for a stay pursuant to their summons dated 2 March 2004, I order the gross sum of the costs of that summons in the total sum of $124,900, to be paid forthwith by the defendants to the plaintiffs.

9.In respect of the gross sum assessment of the hearing arising out of the application of the defendants to vary the order nisi in respect of the indemnity costs, I order that the defendants should pay to the plaintiffs the gross sum costs in the sum of $9,000 to be paid forthwith, and to the third party in the sum of $45,000, also to be paid forthwith.

Representation:

Mr Laracy of Messrs Jonathan Rostron, for the Plaintiffs

Ms Susan Liang of Messrs Susan Liang & Co., for the 1st to 5th Defendants

Mr Mark Side of Messrs Tanner De Witt, for the Third Party