The Blue Bridge

HCAJ000136/1999

HCAJ136/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.136 OF 1999

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

Admiralty action in rem against : the ship or vessel "BLUE BRIDGE"
formerly known as "GREAT POWER"

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 29 October 2002

Date of Judgment: 29 October 2002

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.This is an application for gross sum assessment made by the plaintiffs in relation to the notice of motion brought by the defendants to set aside the proceedings on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction in rem.

2.It had been a hard fought matter and there were ancillary costs involved in that application for discovery and for cross-examination had been taken out by the plaintiffs in support of their overall resistance to the motion. At the end of the day, that aspect did not have to trouble the court further and considerable time had been saved.

3.Yesterday, at the end of the hearing, I dismissed the motion and gave to the plaintiffs the costs of the motion including all ancillary costs, such as the summons for cross-examination and for discovery.

4.Today, it falls upon me to do a gross sum assessment. Mr Horton, for the plaintiffs, helpfully put before me a four-page document summarising the costs incurred by the plaintiffs in relation to this motion, and I have heard argument on costs from both parties. The total of the costs sought to be recovered by the plaintiffs comes to $790,000, divided into roughly $187,000 for counsels' fee, something like $90,000 for three sets of foreign lawyers, Belize lawyers, Cyprus lawyers and Chinese lawyers, and the remainder being Richards Butler's profit costs in the sum of a little bit over $500,000.

5.Mrs Thomson, for the defendants, submits that the costs sought by the plaintiffs are excessive. I must, of course, in doing this gross sum assessment, have regard to what the work that have been done, to what extent they are necessary and to what extent therefore the total is reasonable and should be recoverable. I must say, my initial reaction to the figure of $790,000 is that it is very high for the work involved in this application. I would deal with each category of costs so that at the end of the day, one can see what should be the reasonable costs under each category.

6.I will take first counsels' fees. Total counsels' fees come to $187,500 which includes the brief of $150,000 and fees for reading papers, providing comments, and so and so forth. I think some assistance from counsel apart from brief is necessary but in my view, even though this is a matter where assistance from leading counsel is welcome, it could have been done by a senior junior. I think the overall cost under this category should be no more than $140,000 rather than $187,500.

7.I turn now to foreign lawyers' fees disbursements, which come to a total of roughly $90,000 odd. One must bear in mind that foreign lawyers have to charge at a rate which should have some bearing to reasonable international rates. If one takes a rate of US$300 an hour which is a rate that had been talked about in the course of the hearing, I will have thought that the total amount of papers covered by the reasonable amount of work in this case should not exceed in fees totalling $60,000. So I assess the total sum under that foreign lawyers disbursements at $60,000.

8.I now then turn to Richards Butler's fees. In this, I think I have to bear in mind the seniority of people actually doing the work. Most of the work that ought to be done were in fact done by Mr Horton who I understand is about nine years standing if one includes the English qualification, much less if one counts only the Hong Kong qualification. He seeks to charge a rate of $3,500 per hour. I think with this gross sum assessment, I have to keep an eye on reality, that is, bearing in mind the commercial reality that a lot of firms these days do give discount to the charge up rate, the hourly rate and, furthermore, that this is a very bad economic climate in Hong Kong now where lawyers, especially solicitors, in order to be competitive, are giving very very large discounts. I bear in mind these factors. So I must not penalise the paying party because they have lost, and that they should not have to pay more than if Richards Butler are being paid by the late client on a motion which the plaintiffs have lost.

9.The other question I have to ask is what is the total realistic number of hours for reasonable work if all the work had been done by Mr Horton. Doing it on that basis, I think the number of hours that is claimed, in total, seems to be high. In my view, this case, if all work had been done by Mr Horton, would not warrant more than 125 hours. The 125 hours, if it was divided by eight hours per day, comes to 151/2 days, which is nearly three weeks of work, at eight hours a day, excluding Saturdays and Sundays. So, I think I am not being ungenerous or unreasonable in assessing 125 hours. I will assess an hourly rate of $2,800 which would give a total figure of $350,000. So Richards Bulter's profit costs, I assess, at $350,000.

10.That therefore means the plaintiffs' costs are assessed as follows :

Richard Bulter's profit costs	$350,000
Counsels' fees	$140,000
Foreign lawyer's disbursement fees	$60,000

I therefore assess the total costs of the plaintiffs at $550,000, and that is my gross sum assessment.

Representation:

Mr Andrew Horton of Messrs Richards Butler, for the Plaintiffs

Mrs Mary Thomson of Messrs Koo & Partners, for the Defendants