The Delta Pla

HCAJ000031A/2002

HCAJ31/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.31 OF 2002

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

Admiralty action in rem against the ship or vessel "Delta Pia"

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 25 June 2003

Date of Judgment: 25 June 2003

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.I have before me an application for gross sum assessment by the interveners against the plaintiffs in relation to a successful Motion whereby the court, pursuant to the interveners' Motion, set aside the arrest of the Vessel and ordered the release of the Vessel. The interveners came into the picture in this admiralty action because they are the new owners of the Vessel, the previous owners being the defendants. That is why at the hearing of the Motion, i.e. 29 April 2003, I had before me both the defendants and the interveners.

2.The defendants have now settled their differences on costs with the plaintiffs. The costs that had been agreed between the defendants and the plaintiffs were in the sum of $150,000 for profit costs and $145,821 for disbursement which included counsel's fees, counsel being Mr Clifford Smith.

3.The interveners' involvement started when the Vessel was arrested and continued until 24 April 2003, shortly after they issued the Notice of Motion together with the supporting affidavits. The matter was then handed over to Messrs Crump & Co. who thereafter represented both the interveners and the defendants. The work done by the interveners no doubt was substantial, and I can well understand that they had to investigate and communicate with Taiwanese lawyers because of the position in Taiwan in relation to previous legal proceedings. The question, if I still remember correctly, was in relation to the material of non-disclosure.

4.But the central issue before me today is really what should be the unit cost and what should be the reasonable number of hours worked by the solicitor. I take the overall approach that work such as this, if it is done by a reasonably senior solicitor such as Mr Mallard, what should be the number of hours worked by him without a team of other junior solicitors; and what should be the reasonable unit cost?

5.So far as unit cost is concerned, I have no doubt in the year 2003 in Hong Kong, having regard to our present economic financial position, with most solicitors in town giving substantial discounts (even shipping solicitors) that a figure of $3,500 for unit cost is really at the top end of the scale. Mr Potts of Messrs Crump & Co. who is a far more senior and experienced solicitor is charging $3,500 in his bill.

6.So far as the number of hours is concerned, there was debate during the hearing as to the number of hours' work. Mr Ng suggested a figure of 20 hours. I think Mr Kerry was slowly driven to suggest that a figure of 35 hours is not unreasonable - the figure that had been put forward is something like 50 hours. It seems to me that 35 hours at $3,500 an hour is the reasonable figure for profit costs.

7.The question of disbursement has been debated. I would give some allowance for the Taiwanese lawyers, but would give no allowance for the Singaporean lawyers. Other disbursement costs are not hugely controversial.

8.On that basis, therefore, I would assess the total costs payable by the plaintiffs to the interveners at $150,000. That is to say, profit costs of $125,000 and disbursement of $25,000, making a total of $150,000. That is my assessment on costs.

Representation:

Mr Alex Ng of Messrs Ince & Co., for the Plaintiffs

Mr Chris Kerry of Messrs Crump & Co., for the Interveners