Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCMP 1859/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1859 OF 2011

______________

	IN THE MATTER of s.48 of the Arbitration Ordinance, Cap 609
	and
	IN THE MATTER of Order 29 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap.4 and inherent jurisdiction of the Court

BETWEEN
	EASTMAN CHEMICAL LIMITED	Applicant
and
	HEYRO CHEMICAL COMPANY LIMITED	Respondent

______________

Before : Deputy High Court Judge Lisa Wong, SC in Chambers

Date of Order: 6 March 2012

Date of Respondent’s statement of costs: 13 March 2012

Date of Applicant’s statement of objection: 20 March 2012

Date of Summary Assessment of Costs: 23 May 2012

____________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

____________________________________

1.By a Judgment handed down on 23 February 2012, I dismissed the application by Eastman Chemical Limited (“Eastman”) against Heyro Chemical Company Limited (“Heyro”) for a stay of these miscellaneous proceedings and the arbitration proceedings commenced by Eastman against Heyro by a Notice of Arbitration dated 27 September 2011 (“the Arbitration”) pending the determination of Eastman’s petition for the winding-up of Heyro in HCCW346/2011 (“the Winding-up Petition”).

2.I also made an order nisi that that Eastman should pay Heyro’s costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed, with Certificate for Counsel.

3.Such costs order nisi was varied by consent on 6 March 2012 to the extent that there should be gross sum assessment of Heyro’s costs.

4.Heyro claims $150,122. Eastman is prepared to accept $108,172. The following is a breakdown of their differences:

Work Claimed by Heyro Agreed by Eastman[1]

Manual work (photocopying charges & attendances by legal executive) $1,222 $1,222

Communications

Attendance on client by partner & senior associate $14,800 $10,200

Attendance on other side by senior associate & legal executive $ 6,000 $ 2,300

Attendance on counsel by senior associate & legal executive $ 7,700 $ 7,700

$28,500 $20,200

Professional work

Preparation of affirmation in opposition by senior associate & legal executive $11,800 $2,050

Perusal of summons & supporting affidavit by senior associate $ 7,600 $ 900

Preparation for and attendance at call-over hearing by senior associate $7,200 $1,800

Legal research by senior associate $10,800 Nil

Preparation for and attendance at 2.2.2012 hearing by legal executive $3,000 $2,000

$40,400 $6,750

Counsel’s fees for conferences, drafting affirmation and appearance at hearing on 2 February 2012 $80,000 $80,000

$150,122 $108,172

5.I agree with the solicitors for Eastman that the profit costs claimed for “communications” and “professional work” by the solicitors for Heyro are excessive, particularly having regard to their familiarity with the bulk of the background to Eastman’s stay application from acting for Heyro in respect of the preceding application by Eastman for a Mareva injunction in these miscellaneous proceedings, the Arbitration and the Petition.

6.In my view, the appropriate amounts for “communications” and “professional work” should be $22,000 and $18,000 respectively.

7.I order Eastman to pay Heyro costs in the amount of $121,222 ($1,222 + $22,000 + $18,000 + $80,000) within 14 days from the date hereof.

(Lisa K Y Wong, SC)
Deputy High Court Judge

Messrs Kennedys for the Applicant

Messrs Squire Sanders for the Respondent

[1] As being reasonable and recoverable on a ‘party and party’ taxation.

Cites 1 case

Cases cited in this judgment

Eastman Chemical Ltd v. Heyro Chemical Co Ltd

HCMP 1859/2011

High Court CFI24 May 2012

Other Judgments in This Case