Read the full judgment text of HCA 000219/1976 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 November 1984 before Clough, J..
Civil procedure – costs – party and party taxation – Order 62 rule 28(2) – costs 'necessary or proper' – London leading counsel's first-class air fares between London and Hong Kong and accommodation in a suite in a first-class Hong Kong hotel – treatment as counsel's fees – 'hypothetical Hong Kong counsel' test – global approach – first instance hearing before judge in chambers with certificate for two counsel – Order 62 rule 34(4) – duty of taxing master to give reasons for decision on review – adequacy of reasons – Order 62, First Schedule, Part II, paragraphs 1(2), 2(3) and 2(5) – consolidated actions commenced 1976 – Plaintiff Union (V-Tex) Shirt Factory Limited sued multiple defendants including corporate and individual parties and a firm – Plaintiff succeeded at first instance in eight-day hearing before High Court judge in chambers with judgment delivered 31 March 1983 – 5th Defendant (Chu Ka Kim) and several co-defendants successfully appealed to Court of Appeal on 30 June 1983, with actions dismissed for want of prosecution over four days – 5th Defendant awarded party and party costs – 5th Defendant represented throughout by a London leader, a Hong Kong leader and a Hong Kong junior – Hong Kong leader and junior acted gratuitously – London leader required payment of first-class air fares and hotel suite but charged no fees – taxing master disallowed the travel and accommodation items on review – perfunctory cryptic reasons given – first issue: whether London leader's travel and accommodation costs are to be treated in same way as counsel's fees and tested by the 'hypothetical Hong Kong counsel' test – held: yes; the global approach of Rhind J. in Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1982] HKLR 387 followed; treating such expenses differently from fees would be artificial – second issue: whether simultaneous Hong Kong representation precludes allowance of London leader's expenses – held: no, where those are the only costs claimed and the global figure satisfies the hypothetical counsel test, which it did, the global expenses being appreciably less than the brief fee of HK$50,000 plus seven refreshers of HK$10,000 per day allowed to the 3rd Defendant's Hong Kong leader at first instance and the £6,500 brief fee allowed to another London leader on appeal – third issue: whether taxing master's reasons for decision on review were adequate – held: cryptic abbreviated notes in the 'answers' column are insufficient; the master's answers must fairly reveal the process of reasoning, with reasonable brevity but without prolixity, as required by Megarry VC in re Gibson's Settlement Trusts [1981] Ch 179 at p.192 C-D – application for review allowed in principle – question of quantum to be agreed or remitted to another taxing master because original taxing master had become a District Judge.
Legal issues: Treatment of London leader's travel and accommodation costs on party and party taxation · Effect of simultaneous Hong Kong representation on London leader's travel and accommodation costs · Adequacy of taxing master's reasons for decision on review
Outcome: Application for review allowed; the taxing master erred in principle in disallowing items 768, 769, 133 and 134 representing the London leader's first-class air fares and hotel accommodation expenses, and the items are to be allowed in principle on party and party taxation.