Eric Chan & Co v. Wong Kwok Wang, Warren

HCMP 174/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 174 OF 2012

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 1155 OF 2008)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Hon Yeung VP and Chu JA

Date of Handing Down Decision: 4 May 2012

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Introduction

1.By our Judgment of 30 March 2012, we dismissed the defendant’s application for leave to appeal and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of the application.  Pursuant to our directions, the plaintiff provided on 12 April 2012 a statement of costs for summary assessment and the defendant filed a statement of objections on 26 April 2012.

Item A4: Fee earners’ hourly rate

2.There is only one qualified fee earner (EC). He was admitted in 1995 and charges $4,000 per hour.  We do not agree with the defendant that this is an excessive rate.  This is the rate usually allowed on taxation for a qualified fee earner with 10 or more years of post-qualification experience.  As to the argument that in the proceedings in the District Court (which gives rise to the application for leave to appeal), EC was claiming for his services in taxing his own costs, that is irrelevant to whether EC’s hourly rate is appropriate or excessive.  We allow the rate as claimed.

Item B1: Photocopy charges

3.We do not agree the bundle of documents prepared by the plaintiff is unnecessary.  On the contrary, it provides the court with the necessary background and information about the case to enable the court to properly understand the leave application.  The cost of $4 per page for the first bundle is not excessive. The rate is prescribed by Order 62, First Schedule, Part I, Item 1 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4A.  The amount claimed is allowed.

Item B2: Attendances of litigation clerk

4.The defendant challenges the costs of attending court to file the affirmation of service. There is on the court file an affirmation of service filed on 18 April 2012.  This item is allowed in full.

Item C1: Attendances on the defendant

5.20 minutes are claimed for two letters to the defendant. The defendant says they are cover letters enclosing documents to the defendant.  For this type of short letters, the time claimed is not excessive. We allow this item in full.

Item D1: Preparation of documents

6.A total of 30 hours and 50 minutes were claimed for preparing the plaintiff’s submissions, list of authorities and the affirmation of service and research.  EC has been closely and personally involved in the proceedings in the District Court and is thus familiar with the case and the issues involved. Most of the arguments and matters raised by the defendant had been canvassed and argued in the District Court hearing.  In these circumstances, while we acknowledge that the plaintiff’s written submission was carefully prepared, which is indicative of the incurrence of substantial time and effort, we consider the time spent on the submissions (25 hours) and the research (5 hours) is too long.  We also bear in mind that the costs is assessed on party-and-party basis such that only costs that are reasonable and necessary will be allowed. We will allow a total of 10 hours for the two items of work.

7.As to the time spent on the List of Authorities (30 minutes) and the affirmation of service (20 minutes), we do not agree it is excessive. We are further of the view that it is not unreasonable for EC to attend to these works.

Item D2: Perusal of and considering documents

8.A total of 5 hours and 10 minutes are claimed for perusing and considering the defendant’s summons, skeleton submissions and draft grounds of appeal and the Judgment and order.  Having regard to the contents of the documents involved, we consider 4 hours to be a reasonable amount of time.

Conclusion

9.In conclusion, the costs of the plaintiff on the defendant’s application are assessed at HK$ 65, 683.  The breakdown is as below:

Item	Description	Time allowed	Amount allowed (HK$)
A4	Hourly rate of fee earner @ $4,000
B1	Photocopy charges		3,581
B2	Attendances of litigation clerk		770
C1	Attendances on defendant	20 minutes	1,333
C2	Attendance on court	10 minutes	666
D1	Preparation of documents	10 hours 50 minutes	43,333
D2	Perusal of and considering documents	4 hours	16,000
	Total		65,683

The plaintiff, represented by Mr Eric Chan.

The defendant, unrepresented.