Ip Tsz Lam Ada v. Pearl Wisdom Ltd

HCA 2482/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2482 OF 2007

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

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

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 30 April 2009

Date of Summary Assessment of Costs : 30 April 2009

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

Summary Assessment of Costs

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

1.This is the summary assessment of the costs order made on 2 April 2009. 

2.I have considered the defendant’s statement of costs and the plaintiff’s objections to the defendant’s statement. 

3.It seems to me that the total sum claimed by the defendant in the sum of HK$667,300 is both unreasonable and disproportionate having regard to the nature of the application to amend the statement of claim and the underlying objectives in Order 1A, rule 1 RHC in particular (a) and (c). 

4.The summary assessment of costs is to be conducted on a broad-brush basis.  It is not a mini taxation of costs. 

5.The vast majority of the costs claimed is in respect of senior counsel’s fees for the hearing on 6 February 2009 and the hearing on 2 April 2009. 

6.The first hearing was a 3-minutes hearing which was fixed before me.  It was abundantly clear that 3 minutes would not suffice for the hearing and having considered the correspondence it seems to me that the defendant did try to save costs by asking the plaintiff to consent to adjourning the hearing with directions.  Be that as it may, the plaintiff insisted on proceeding with the 3-minutes hearing and instructed counsel for that hearing.  The defendant instructed senior counsel.  In my view, the costs of that hearing should be borne by the plaintiff, but it was wholly unnecessary to instruct senior counsel for a 3-minutes hearing.  I shall proceed on the basis of junior counsel being instructed, not for a full argument but for a 3-minutes hearing. 

7.As regards the brief fee of senior counsel for the hearing before me on 2 April 2009, that was an interlocutory application set down for 2 hours to oppose the application to amend the statement of claim.  In my view, it would have been reasonable to engage a reasonably competent junior counsel to deal with that application.  If the defendant wished to instruct senior counsel for that application that is a luxury it has to pay for.  I shall proceed on the basis that a reasonably competent junior counsel should have been instructed for that hearing.  I bear in mind that it was not a simple straightforward application to amend but it was a matter of some difficulty.  Nevertheless junior counsel would have been sufficiently competent to deal with that. 

8.As regards item (b) in the defendant’s statement of costs, it seems to me that the time spent for conferences, telephone calls and letters with client, the other side, counsel, court and others is excessive.  The time spent for preparation of documents and perusal of documents under item (c) is also, in my view, excessive. 

9.Applying a broad-brush approach I would assess the total costs including counsel’s fees for 6 February 2009 and 2 April 2009 as well as disbursements in the total sum of HK$95,000 and I assess the costs in that sum.  Costs are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant in the total sum of HK$95,000.

[After hearing submissions]

10.I will also allow the defendant costs of HK$2,000 for to-day’s hearing.  In addition to the HK$95,000 the defendant should be paid HK$2,000 for to-day’s hearing.

Mr Francis Haddon-Cave, instructed by Messrs Tang, Leung, Li & Tsang, for the Plaintiff

Ms S. Chan of Messrs Chu & Lau, for the Defendant