Oriental Overseas Maritime Services Ltd v. The Owners and/or Demise Charterers of the Ship or Vessel "Fan Yun 123 (番運123)"
Read the full judgment text of HCAJ 265/2005 on BabelCite. This HCAJ judgment was delivered on 15 February 2006.
1. This is a gross sum assessment of the costs incurred by the defendant in setting aside the warrant of arrest. It has been a long and difficult series of hearing starting with the motion, followed by extensive affidavits, followed by directions from the court, followed by further affidavits. The hearing itself started on Monday, and took three days. We are now into the lunchtime of the third day.
|
HCAJ265/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ADMIRALTY ACTION NO.265 OF 2005 --------------------------- Admiralty action in rem against the ship or vessel BETWEEN
------------------------------- Before : Hon Waung J in Court Date of Hearing : 15 February 2006 Date of Judgment : 15 February 2006 ------------------------------------------------------- GROSS SUM ASSESSMENT ------------------------------------------------------- 1.This is a gross sum assessment of the costs incurred by the defendant in setting aside the warrant of arrest. It has been a long and difficult series of hearing starting with the motion, followed by extensive affidavits, followed by directions from the court, followed by further affidavits. The hearing itself started on Monday, and took three days. We are now into the lunchtime of the third day. 2.As it has not been an easy matter and much work had been done which has been reflected in all the documents put before the court — the court, I think a generous allowance should be made. 3.The defendant had put forward to the court a statement of the costs of the defendant for gross sum assessment. The total sum as shown in that statement comes to just slightly short of $650,000, consisting of $150,000 for counsel and $492,000 odd for disbursement of the solicitors. There is no resistance or objection to the counsel’s fees, but there is resistance to the profit costs of the solicitors, in particular to the unit costs of Miss Rosita Lau who is a senior solicitor, a partner of Ince & Co., and to the number of hours of work as well as to the hours worked by Mr Roy Chan although there is no objection to Roy Chan’s unit costs. 4.This is undoubtedly a case where two skilled practitioners in this area of the work were required. So there cannot be objection to the fact that there are two special fee earners engaged on this case. There may be some element of duplication, but I suspect there is not too much. 5.The figures suggested by Mr Chong on behalf of the plaintiff is that the number of hours or the costs put forward under the summary of Miss Rosita Lau should be reduced by 30% and of Mr Roy Chan reduced by 50%. In my view, that was wholly unreasonable. 6.Doing the best I can, it seems to me that on the profit costs, having taken into account some element of discount and elimination for possible duplication, I would award the sum for profit costs of $450,000. I allow the whole of the counsel’s fees. So the gross sum assessment is therefore $450,000 plus $150,000, therefore is $600,000. 7.I therefore award to the defendant the sum of $600,000 plus the other disbursements of $11,562, totalling $611,562.
Mr Patrick Chong, instructed by Messrs Dibb Lupton Alsop, for the Plaintiff Mr Colin Wright, instructed by Messrs Ince & Co., for the Defendant |
Further hearings and rulings under HCAJ 265/2005