Poon Yat Lam Ilum v. Chan Chi Wai

HCPI 462/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 462 OF 2003

______________________

BETWEEN

______________________

Before : Deputy High Court Judge Saunders in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 12 September 2006

Date of Ruling : 12 September 2006

Date of Reasons for Ruling on Costs : 15 September 2006

Date of Ruling on Gross Sum Costs : 2 November 2006

________________________________________

RULING ON GROSS SUM COSTS

_________________________________________

1.In these proceedings the plaintiff accepted a payment into court, at the door of the court, on the first day of the trial.  On 12 September 2006, I ruled that the defendant was entitled to costs for the period from 14 days after the filing of the last notice of payment in, (7 July 2005), to the date of trial.  In order to save further costs that might be incurred by a taxation I ordered that there be gross sum costs.

2.The plaintiff’s solicitors have now supplied to me their gross sum costs estimate, the defendant’s solicitors have supplied their objections to that estimate, and the plaintiff’s solicitors have responded thereto.  The plaintiff’s solicitors have supplied a supplemental estimate of further costs, to which there has been a reply and a response.

3.This is my ruling on those claims.

4.The hourly rate of $4,000.00 claimed is in accordance with the Law Society guideline for a solicitor with the experience of that in these proceedings.  However this was a simple running down action, with short witness statements and a narrow compass of fact.  There was little to dispute, or even examine, in the medical reports.  In those circumstances, although I am satisfied with the hourly rates claimed, the attendance times and the time for preparation for trial claimed are excessive, having regard to the experience of the solicitor involved.

5.In taking a broad view of the matter, as is appropriate in the assessment of gross sum costs, I fix the solicitors costs, (items 1 to 10 of the plaintiff’s estimate), at $70,000.  With the exception of the claim for Law Costs Draughtsman’s fees, the disbursements, (items 11, 12 and 13), are approved.  It was not necessary to involve a Law Costs Draughtsman in the preparation of the assessment of costs which could have been done perfectly adequately by a solicitor familiar with the matter in a short space of time.  The claim is disallowed. 

6.The “Supplemental Assessment of Costs” submitted by the plaintiff’s solicitors, relating to the preparation of the costs estimates is disallowed.  Where there are to be gross sum costs a straightforward approach should be adopted, and estimates and replies kept to a minimum, the whole purpose of the exercise is being to keep costs to the minimum.  It must be borne in mind that usually a gross sum costs exercise will be undertaken at the end of the hearing, with estimates being handed into the judge at that time, and any objections to the figures being heard at that time.  In those circumstances the whole exercise should usually take less than 20 minutes.

7.The total sum to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of gross sum costs will be solicitor’s costs $70,000.00, together with disbursements totalling $101,900.00.

Messrs Chong, So & Co., for the Plaintiff

Messrs Yip & Partners, for the Defendant