Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners (A Firm) v. Park Young Sook

Case No.HCMP 359/2009

Court

High Court CFI

Date07 Jun 2010

JudgeHon Sakhrani J

Case Document

100%

HCMP 359/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 359 OF 2009

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

	IN THE MATTER OF the costs between Messrs. Ho, Tse, Wai & Parners, former solicitors for Ms. Park Young Sook (also known as Christine Chu), the Respondent in FCMC No. 7365 of 2007
	and
	IN THE MATTER OF seeking a costs order under Section 2 and Section 67(2) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance, Cap. 159 and Order 62 Appendix 60 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4

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

BETWEEN
	HO, TSE, WAI & PARTNERS (a firm)	Plaintiff
	and
	PARK YOUNG SOOK (also known as Christine Chu)	Defendant

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

Before: Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 7 June 2010

Date of Decision: 7 June 2010

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1.By a notice of appeal dated 10 May 2010 the plaintiff gave notice that it intended to appeal against the decision of Master Ho given on 15 April 2010 whereby he ordered that taxation of costs between the plaintiff, the former solicitors of the defendant, and the defendant be stayed until the final determination of a High Court Action.

2.It was only late last week that the plaintiff indicated to the defendant’s solicitors that the appeal would very likely be abandoned. That being so, on Friday 4 June the plaintiff issued a summons dated 4 June 2010 which is before me now.

3.It seems to me that I can deal with the summons and the notice of appeal at the same time.

4.Mr. Poon has confirmed that the appeal is abandoned and for that reason I dismiss the appeal. Mr. Poon also accepts that costs should follow the event. I, therefore, order that the costs of the appeal including the summons dated 4 June 2010 should be costs to the defendant.

5.Mr. Poon submitted that the costs to be paid to the defendant should be set off against such sum as may be found owing by the defendant to the plaintiff after the taxation has been completed namely, the taxation of the costs that was before Master Ho. However, it seems to me that there is no reason to deprive the defendant of the costs order that I have made. The appeal should never have been brought and this has been recognised rather late in the day by the plaintiff with its abandonment of the appeal. It seems to me that it is right and proper that those costs should be paid forthwith.

6.Dealing with the defendant’s summary assessment of costs it seem to me that it is right and proper that I should assess the costs to the defendant summarily and I do so having heard the arguments of Mr. Poon and Mr. Emerson.

7.The total sum claimed according to the statement of costs is the sum of $65,824.00. Having heard the submissions of Mr. Poon it seems to me that a reasonable sum, applying a broad-brush approach, is to allow costs to the defendant in the sum of $40,000.00 and that is the order that I make. Such costs are to be paid within 14 days from today.

	(Arjan H Sakhrani)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance

Mr Anthony K. T. Poon of Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, for the Plaintiff

Mr Emerson of Messrs Wilson Yeung & Co., for the Defendant