Waddington Limited v. Chan Chun Hoo Thomas and Others

HCA 3291/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 3291 OF 2003

_____________

Date of summary assessment of costs: 13 March 2014

_________________________________

SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

_________________________________

1.This is the summary assessment of costs in respect of the indemnity costs order I made on 5 June 2013.

2.The background leading to the award of costs has been fully set out in my Reasons for Decision dated 7 June 2013 and I do not want to repeat the same here.  For the purpose of this summary assessment of costs, I will use the same abbreviations that I have adopted in the said Reasons for Decision.

3.After the hearing, I ordered, inter alia, the plaintiff to pay Mr Lee and Ms Chiang the costs of the Subpoenas Summonses on an indemnity basis.  I also ordered the plaintiff to pay Yugang the costs of the Yugang Summons on an indemnity basis.  I now proceed to assess these costs summarily.

The costs of Mr Lee

4.I refer to the Statement of Costs of Mr Lee filed on 19 June 2013 and the  plaintiff’s List of Objections filed on 3 July 2013.

5.Even taking into account that the costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis, I find that the hourly rate charged by Mr Ronald Tong is excessive.  I reduce it to $5,000 an hour.  For the trainee solicitor, I reduce it to $1,100 an hour.

6.I allow the photocopy charges in item B in full.

7.The time charged for the communications in item C is reasonable.  Taking into account the adjustment in hourly rates, I reduce the sum claimed in item C to $3,600.

8.In my judgment, the time charged in item D for the preparation work is excessive, in particular as counsel had been briefed to attend the hearing and there was some duplication of works because the solicitors also appeared for Yugang in the same hearing.  Further, taking into account the adjustment in hourly rates, I reduce the amount in item D to $12,000.

9.Even taking into account that Mr Anson Wong of counsel also appeared for Yugang in the same hearing, I take the view that the fee charged by counsel for the Subpoenas Summons is reasonable and so I allow the fee in full.

10.I therefore summarily assess Mr Lee’s costs in the sum of $34,108.

The costs of Ms Chiang

11.I refer to the Statement of Costs filed by Ms Chiang on 18 June 2013 and the plaintiff’s List of Objections filed on 2 July 2013.

12.Even taking into account that the costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis, I find that the hourly rates charged by Mr Ronny Chow and Mr Robert Clark are excessive.  In particular, the application is not a particularly complicated one, and so I reduce their hourly rates to $5,000.  For Ms Ruby Chong, I reduce it to $2,500 an hour.

13.I allow item B in full.

14.For the communications in item C, I only allow 1.5 hours for communications with client, and so the sum allowed is $9,500.

15.For the time spent in perusing the documents in items D1 and D2, I take the view that the time spent is excessive, I allow a total of 2 hours for these items and so the sum assessed is $10,000.  For items D3 and D4, I allow the total time claimed, in particular I allow some travelling time as the costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis.  After adjusting the hourly rates, the sum allowed under items D3 and D4 is $8,750.

16.Hence, I assess Ms Chiang’s costs in the sum of $28,370.

The costs of Yugang

17.I refer to Yugang’s Statement of Costs dated 19 June 2013 and the plaintiff’s List of Objections filed on 3 July 2013.

18.Even taking into account that the costs are to be assessed on an indemnity basis, I find that the hourly rates charged by Mr Ronald Tong and Mr Albert Rosa are excessive.  I reduce them to $5,000 an hour.  For the trainee solicitor, I reduce it to $1,100 an hour.

19.I allow the manual work in item B in full.

20.For the communications in item C, I am of the view that the time claimed is excessive, in particular the time spent in attendance on client and attendance on counsel.  I also do not accept that the nature of the application justifies the involvement of 2 senior solicitors.  Taking into account the adjustment in hourly rates, I reduce the sum claimed to $35,000.

21.For the professional work in item D, I take the view that the sums claimed are very excessive, in particular the time spent in perusing the documents and the preparation for the hearing.  As counsel had been briefed to attend the hearing, I do not accept that the solicitors need to spend so much time in preparing the hearings.  Further, there was no point for 2 senior solicitors to attend the hearings.  I therefore only allow a sum of $75,000 under item D.

22.For counsel’s fees, I consider it reasonable to have engaged counsel to attend the first hearing on 8 April 2013 taking into account the nature of the application.  I allow the counsel’s fee for the first hearing in full.  For the substantive hearing, as the application is not a particularly complicated one, I only allow $100,000 as the brief fee.  For the other fees of Mr Wong, they are excessive in particular about the time spent in conference. I allow a total of $70,000 for items E2 and E3.  The total amount of counsel’s fees allowed is $193,000.

23.I allow item F in full.

24.I therefore assess Yugang’s costs in the sum of $304,551.

Kao, Lee & Yip, for the plaintiff

Cheung, Tong & Rosa, for Yugang International Limited and Mr Lee Ka Sze Carmelo

Deacons, for Ms Chiang Sui Fook Lilian