Pt Bali Hospitality Utama v. Mathias Echene and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 604/2009 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.

1. The Plaintiff’s solicitors having indicated that they are now without instructions and are not in a position to make any observations on the 2nd Defendant’s statement of costs.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 604/2009
Court
High Court CFI
Date
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 604/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 604 OF 2009

____________

BETWEEN

  PT BALI HOSPITALITY UTAMA Plaintiff
  and
  MATHIAS ECHENE 1st Defendant
  LAURENT LAUTIER 2nd Defendant
  DAVID CHKIERMAN 3rd Defendant
  CHARLES JOORY 4th Defendant

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers

Date of Ruling on Gross Assessment of Costs (Handed Down):  16 April, 2010

______________________________________________

RULING ON GROSS ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

______________________________________________

1.The Plaintiff’s solicitors having indicated that they are now without instructions and are not in a position to make any observations on the 2nd Defendant’s statement of costs.

2.The basis of the assessment is on an indemnity basis, I having already ruled that this is the appropriate basis of taxation. I have decided to make a gross assessment of the 2nd Defendant’s costs.

3.The total amount that is asked for is $896,477 including $274,375 for leading counsel and $149,765 for fees paid to Indonesian lawyers to advise on Indonesian Law. The 2nd Defendant’s solicitors have charged $470,174.

4.It should be remembered that these fees only related to the preparation for and the hearing of a stay application which was disposed of in 2 hours and 8 minutes with judgment being delivered the following day together with a separate hearing as to whether costs should be taxed on a party and party or on an indemnity basis.

5.As to part B being for manual work, I allow this in full. As to part C being for communications and conferences, I also allow this in full. As to part D for professional work, I consider that 50 hours would have been sufficient under D1 preparation of documents and reduce this to $190,000. D2 I reduce to 5 hours given that the same person prepared the documents and has been paid for this under D1, and so $19,000 will be allowed for this. D3 is also excessive and represents and overlap with D1 and D2. I will allow 5 hours which is $19,000. D4 I allow in full. As to counsel’s fees, I allow these save for the refresher. This was a one-day hearing and counsel were released for the delivery of judgment the following day. Under F, I allow these fees in full.

6.The gross assessment therefore will be $728,877.

  (Ian Carlson)
Deputy High Court Judge

Messrs Oldham, Li & Nie for the Plaintiff

Messrs F Zimmern & Co. for the 2nd Defendant

The 1st, 3rd and 4th Defendants did not appear and were not represented