Dbs Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v. Sit Pan Jit

HCA 382/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 382 OF 2009

________________

________________________________________

DECISION ON ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

________________________________________

1.On 26 April 2013, I handed down my Decision in which I dismissed the plaintiff’s application to vacate the trial dates (“Decision”). I also granted a costs order nisi (which is now absolute) that the plaintiff shall pay costs of the application to the defendant to be summarily assessed and paid forthwith (“Cost Order”). This is the decision on summary assessment of costs under the Cost Order.

2.Since costs under the Cost Order are assessed on party and party basis, only costs that are necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending the taxing party’s rights will be allowed (see Order 62, rule 28(2) of the Rules of the High Court).

Hourly rate

3.Given the ambit of the application, the nature of the work by the handling solicitor and the involvement of counsel, I find that the claimed hourly rate of the handling solicitor of $4,500 to be excessive.  The hourly rate of a notional solicitor appropriate to the tasks at hand should be $3,800. 

Item B2

4.The defendant claims $2,000 for two attendances by litigation clerk. The plaintiff says such claim is grossly excessive and only $160 should be allowed, ie $110 for filing and $50 for service.  No affidavit has been filed by the defendant, and the only document filed and served was the court order.  However, there would be delivery of instructions to counsel, and lodgment of the draft order.  I allow $500under this item.

Items C1 and C3

5.Under this item, the defendant claims $3,375 being 45 minutes for attendance on client and $4,500 being one hour for attendance on counsel.  In my view, it is obvious that instructions have to be taken from the defendant on whether to resist the plaintiff’s application and if so, to confirm instructions for briefing counsel to attend the hearing.  I also accept that the defendant’s solicitors will have to liaise with counsel.  Nevertheless, the issue at hand falls within a small compass and the niceties of listing arrangements are within the professional knowledge of solicitors rather than a matter of lay instructions. In the circumstances, I find the time spent excessive.  I will allow half an hour at $1,900 for Item C1 and half an hour at $1,900 for Item C3.

Items D1, D2, D3 and D4

6.The defendant claims $2,250 for half an hour spent on preparation of documents, $13,500 for three hours spent on perusal of documents, and $2,250 for half an hour spent on preparation for hearing by the handling solicitor.  The documents prepared would be instructions to counsel, usual reporting correspondence to client, and preparation of the draft order.  I am prepared to allow half an hour at $1,900 for Item D1.  As for Item D2, I am not persuaded that reading the summons, the supporting affidavit and the written submissions would require three hours.  The subject matter is straightforward, the volume of documents minimal, and counsel has been involved.  In the circumstances, I allow 40 minutes at $2,533.  For Item D3, given the involvement of counsel and the limited ambit of the subject matter of the hearing, I consider 20 minutes by the handling solicitor at $1,267 to be necessary or proper.  As for Item D4, due to adjustment of the hourly rate, I allow $1,900.

Item E

7.I bear in mind that counsel was called to the bar in 2007, but the subject application concerns more about practice rather than law.  The dispute turns on a short matter of practice and practicality.  Bearing in mind that the hearing was for half an hour, I am not persuaded that notional counsel appropriate for the hearing whose fees are necessary or proper will charge a brief fee of $25,000.  I allow counsel’s fee in the sum of $17,000.

Conclusion

8.The total costs of the defendant on his statement of costs are assessed at HK$29,000 (being $100 (B1) + $500 (B2) + HK$1,900 (C1) + $1,900 (C3) + HK$1,900 (D1) + HK$2,533 (D2) + HK$1,267 (D3) + HK$1,900 (D4) + HK$17,000 (E)).  I therefore order that the plaintiff shall forthwith pay costs in the sum of HK$29,000 to the defendant.

Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the plaintiff

Messrs Yam & Company, for the defendant