William Thomson v. Roland John Jeans and Another

DCCJ 3388 & 3389/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 3388 OF 2005

________________________

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 3389 OF 2005

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.I have to deal with the 2nd defendant’s application for security of costs in both summonses under DCCJ 3388/2005 and DCCJ 3389/2005. The only issue I am concerned with is the amount of security of costs to be given by the plaintiff in both actions.

2.The plaintiff has submitted a document showing that it has run five summonses and the 2nd defendant has one summons, namely, order for costs on security in both cases in the total amount of $70,000.

3.The plaintiff’s estimation of entitlement to costs in the five summonses is in the total amount of $337,000. The 2nd defendant’s entitlement to costs in the sum of $70,000 has to be taken off from this amount.  The end result is that, according to the plaintiff, the 2nd defendant has to pay the plaintiff costs in the sum of $267,000.  Of course, the correctness of this figure cannot be ascertained only until after taxation of the figures have been done.

4.To arrive at a rough estimation of the figures or amount in relation to plaintiff’s entitlement to costs which it has won, I give a 20% off the figure of $267,000 to allow room for mistake.  The final figure is HK$200,250.

5.In respect of the 2nd defendant’s skeleton bill of costs in support of this application, I accept the figures save and except item 5 in the sum of $4,100. 

6.The total figure for one summons is $139,705, namely,  $143,805 - $4,100.  When this is doubled, the figure is $279,410.  This figure is used to deduct the entitlement of costs to the plaintiff in the sum of $200,250.  The end result is that the balance is $79,160.  I round it up to $79,000.

7.I make the following comments in respect of some of the items under the skeleton bill of costs compiled by the 2nd defendant.

8.Under item 1, the amount is $6,530.  The plaintiff suggested a figure of $2,600.  Now, that means one hour for the partner Ian De Witt.  I have read the judgment of Deputy Judge Chan. She said that it is reasonable for a team of 10 persons to work in these cases.  By offering or suggesting a sum of $2,600, it means one hour’s work is to be done by one partner.  I do not think that is reasonable because there is still the work done by solicitor and then the trainee solicitor.  So I do not accept this figure of $2,600.

9.Under item 5, the 2nd defendant suggested a figure of $4,100.  I am not able to say exactly whether this item was considered and included in Deputy Judge Chan’s decision relating to security for costs, but this is only a small figure.  So I do not think that there will be any harm done not to consider this figure.

10.Under item 6, there is a figure of $9,900 suggested by the 2nd defendant while the plaintiff suggested a figure of $5,200.  That reflects two hours of work by IDW.  But I think there are previous matters included under item 6.  I think that the reviewing of all the documents and pleadings, collating and compiling court documents and then preparing for the trial, reviewing all court documents and pleadings of the plaintiff, I think the amount called is roughly reasonable.  I think definitely the trainee solicitor will have to spend 5 hours and then the supervising solicitor will have to spend some time and definitely it will be more than $5,200.  There are only two figures:  $9,900 or $5,200.  I think that the bigger figure is more reasonable. 

11.Now, under item 6, again, I think $2,600 as suggested by the plaintiff when compared to the bigger figure of $9,300, I think the lower figure is not too reasonable.  Concerning counsel’s work, I think $96,000 is reasonable, so at the end the figure arrived at is $139,705.

12.The plaintiff commented that the issues and the facts in this case will be identical to the extent of about 80% and then so the overlapping of the work must be considered. 

13.The 2nd defendant’s counsel told me that the hours are the results of considering the total time spent on the two cases and then for the purpose of this application it is divided by two.  There cannot be any counter-suggestion from the plaintiff to say that this is not correct. 

14.I take counsel’s words in this respect for the 2nd defendant.  So I take the calculation as shown on the skeleton as reflecting the correctness of the rough estimation of the 2nd defendant and at the end of the day the security for costs for each action to be paid by the plaintiff is $39,500 for each case.  So I make the same order for both summonses.

15.I order that unless the plaintiff do within 14 days give security for the 2nd defendant’s costs in this action up to and including trial by paying into court the sum of $39,500, the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed with costs to the 2nd defendant.

16.Now, then, it is the same order for each summons.

(Discussion re costs)

17.Costs of this application in respect of these two summons be costs in the cause of the entire action.

Miss Joyce Chan, instructed by John Ip & Co, for the plaintiff for both cases

The 1st defendant was not represented and did not appear

Mr Jason Yu, instructed by Tanner De Witt, for the 2nd defendant