Hau Hon Shek v. Chung Fu Cheung

HCA 1731/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1731 OF 2011

________________

________________________

________________________

1.On 4 February 2014, at the conclusion of the hearing of the defendant’s appeal against an order of the master I made an order that the defendant’s costs of the appeal be the subject of a summary assessment.

2.The Statement of the Defendant’s Costs, appropriately certified by the defendant’s solicitors, was served on 11 February 2014.  There were two components to the costs claim.  The first was the claim for $109,868 in regard to the plaintiff’s summons of 20 June 2013, being the summons determined by the master.  The costs of that summons had been directed by the master to be to the plaintiff, with the costs to be paid forthwith. I understand those costs to have been assessed and paid.

3.The other component was a claim for $101,004 being the costs of the appeal before me.

4.The solicitors for the plaintiff filed their objections to the statement on 14 February 2014.  Although it is well established that an Assessment of Costs is not a mini‑taxation this submission addressed the claimed costs on a line by line basis.

5.The plaintiff submitted that the first component should be assessed at $52,767, and the second component at $44,511.  In summary the thrust of the plaintiff’s submission was that there was duplication as between solicitors and counsel; that the rate for the handing solicitor was too high; and that some work was simply unnecessary.

6.The plaintiff’s own costs before the master were, I am told, $98,240.  The plaintiff accepts, correctly that the assessment is to be a broad brush exercise.  I concur with the plaintiff also that the summons, and the appeal were relatively uncomplicated matters albeit of sufficient importance to both parties to justify or require the attendance of counsel.

7.It seems to me that the bulk of the work required was generated by the summons heard by the master.  The hearing before me, a hearing de novo, was a “re‑run” of the earlier hearing.

8.Having regard to all the circumstances I assess the defendant’s costs of the hearing before the master, including the preparation work, at $95,000, and the costs of the appeal, including preparation, at $70,000.

9.In addition the costs already paid by the defendant to the plaintiff pursuant to the order of the master are now to be repaid.

Mr Remedios Jose D Almada, instructed by John Ip & Co, for the plaintiff

Mr Alan Kwong, instructed by Tung, Ng, Tse & Heung, for the defendant