Yeung Ga Wai Formerly Known As Yeung Pui Wah v. Lau Ming Shum

Read the full judgment text of HCA 798/2004 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 7 August 2012.

1. By my Decision handed down on 19 July 2012, I dismissed the defendant’s application for adducing expert evidence at trial with costs to the plaintiff to be assessed summarily by way of a schedule of costs and the list of objections to be filed and served by the parties.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 798/2004
Court
High Court CFI
Date07 Aug 2012
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 798/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 798 OF 2004

________________________

BETWEEN

YEUNG GA WAI
formerly known as YEUNG PUI WAH
Plaintiff
and
LAU MING SHUM Defendant

Before : Mr Registrar K.W. Lung in Chambers

Date of Paper Disposal : 7 August 2012

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision : 8 August 2012

________________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS

________________________________________

1.By my Decision handed down on 19 July 2012, I dismissed the defendant’s application for adducing expert evidence at trial with costs to the plaintiff to be assessed summarily by way of a schedule of costs and the list of objections to be filed and served by the parties.

2.The parties have filed the schedule of costs and the list of objections respectively.

3.The plaintiff’s costs, as according to the schedule, amount to $82,500.00.

4.The defendant opposes this amount on the ground that some of the items in the schedule are unreasonable and excessive, bearing in mind that the hearing was set down for 2 hours only.

5.I agree with the defendant’s objections in respect of the following items, namely, B1: communication including conferences with client and counsel, which should be cut down to 2 hours only; C1: the time for perusal of documents, which should be cut down to 3.5 hours only; E: counsel’s fee, to be disallowed as counsel was not instructed for the hearing.

6.It is trite that the Court should adopt a broad-brush approach for summary assessment of the costs.

7.Applying the broad-brush approach, I assess the costs to be $50,000.00, which I order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff within 14 days from 22 August 2012.

8.This order nisi is made under Order 42 rule 5B(6), which shall become absolute unless an application is made to vary this order by 22 August 2012.

(K.W. Lung)
Registrar, High Court

Messrs Leung, Tam & Wong for the Plaintiff

Messrs Kenneth Woo & Co. for the Defendant