Brio Electronic Commerce Ltd v. Tradelink Electronic Commerce Ltd

HCA 1714/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1714 OF 2010

_________________________

BETWEEN

_________________________

Coram : Before Mr Registrar K.W. Lung in Chambers

Dates of Filing of Written Submissions : Defendant’s submissions filed on 30 October 2012 and Plaintiff’s submissions filed on 6 November 2012

Date of Decision : 19 November 2012

___________________

DECISION ON COSTS

___________________

1.This is pursuant to my decision dated 24 October 2012 whereby I ordered the plaintiff to pay costs for the application to the defendant by way of summary assessment under Order 62 rule 9(4)(b) of RHC.  The application was over whether the plaintiff should pay the costs for its application for extension of time for it to serve a witness statement out of time and it was disposed of on the papers. The defendant had instructed counsel to make written submissions.

2.The defendant has filed its schedule of costs and the plaintiff, its objections accordingly.

3.The total amount of costs claimed by the defendant is $26,480.00.

4.The plaintiff has raised a number of objections, the total amount of deduction being $10,546.66.

5.It is trite that for summary assessment, the court should adopt a broad-brush approach.  The Working Party of CJR has stated it clearly in the Final Report such approach is the proper approach.  At §529 (b)

“The second (feature of summary assessment) involves an assessment of the sum of costs payable in a summary and broad-brush way, rather than through a process of taxation whereby every item in the receiving party’s bill of costs is potentially subject to challenge…”

At §531

“The second feature is aimed at enabling prompt payment to be exercised and avoiding the costs of detailed taxation.”

6.On a broad-brush assessment of the defendant’s bill, taking into account of the plaintiff’s objections, I consider that the reasonable costs for the defendant should be $18,000.00. I shall simply say that I accept most of the plaintiff’s objections except that the quantum of deductions should be subject to adjustment, in particular the counsel’s fee, there being no objection to counsel’s certificate for the defendant but only as to the amount of counsel’s fee.

7.I so order and the payment should be made within 14 days from the date of this order.

Messrs Ma Tang & Co, for the plaintiff

Messrs Lo & Lo, for the defendant