Lin Pai Ching v. Star Rainbow Investments Ltd

HCSD14/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE A STATUTORY DEMAND

NO. 14 OF 2010

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

Before : Hon Chu J in Chambers

Date of Statement of Costs : 14 September 2010

Date of Decision : 13 October 2010

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

DECISION
ON ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

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

Introduction

1.On 27 August 2010, I handed down the Judgment herein, dismissing the applicant's application to set aside a statutory demand with a costs order nisi against the applicant.  The order nisi had since become absolute.  Pursuant to the directions in the Judgment, the respondent had on 14 September 2010 lodged a statement of costs for summary assessment.  The applicant had however not lodged any objections or comments on the statement of costs, within the time provided for in the Judgment.  My assessment of the respondent's costs appears below.

2.The total costs claimed by the respondent are HK$ 139,800.  The assessment is on party-and-party basis, such that costs will only be allowed where they are necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the rights of the party whose costs are being taxed: Order 62 rule 28(2) of Rules of the High Court, Cap.4A.

Solicitors' professional costs

3.Part D:  In considering the time incurred for the preparation of documents (Item D1, 2.5 hours) and perusal of documents (Item D2, 2 hours), it has to be noted that the present action is related to and in fact arose out of HCA2410/2009.  The factual matters and issues in the two sets of proceedings overlap substantially. The fee earner was also involved in HCA2410/2009.  The application and the supporting affirmation of the applicant are short documents.  The only substantial exhibit is the Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement, which was a main document in HCA2410/2009.  While the respondent's affirmation in opposition is lengthier, much of the contents would already be familiar to the fee earner.  It also appears from item E1 that this affirmation was drafted by counsel.    In these circumstances, the total time spent on preparation and perusal of documents is too long on party-and-party basis. 

4.For the same reasons, the time incurred on preparing for the hearings (Item D3, 2 hours) is also too long.

5.I therefore disallow 2.5 hours of the total time claimed under Part D.  The time allowed is 6.5 hours (i.e. 9 hours – 2.5 hours).

Counsel fees

6.There is no certificate for two counsel.  Accordingly, only one counsel's fee may be allowed.  Under Item E1, $7,000 drafting fee of senior counsel (who did not appear at the hearing) is disallowed.  The amount allowed is $77,000 (i.e. $84,000 - $7,000).

Summary

7.In summary, the costs of the respondent are assessed and allowed at HK$122,800. The breakdown is as follows:

Parts	Time allowed	Costs allowed (HK$)
B. Manual Work		1,800
C. Communications	4.5 hours	18,000
D. Professional Work	6.5 hours	26,000
E. Counsel		77,000
Total		122,800

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.

Messrs Zebra HY Kwan & Partners for the respondent.