Hong Kong Hua Qiao Co Ltd v. Cham Ka Tai

Read the full judgment text of HCA 2619/2005 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 July 2014.

1. On 30 July 2013, I handed down judgment in this matter. A costs order nisi was made, and on 27 June 2014, having heard from counsel for the company, and not calling upon counsel for Ms Cham, I made the costs order absolute.

Cited by 3 cases

Case No.HCA 2619/2005
Court
High Court CFI
Date11 Jul 2014
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 2619/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2619 OF 2005

_______________

BETWEEN

  HONG KONG HUA QIAO COMPANY LIMITED
(香港華僑服務社有限公司)
Plaintiff
 

and

 
  CHAM KA TAI (湛加大) Defendant
_______________
  (By Original Action)  
AND BETWEEN    
  CHAM KA TAI (湛加大) Plaintiff

and

  HONG KONG HUA QIAO COMPANY LIMITED
(香港華僑服務社有限公司)
1st Defendant
  WONG TIN TAI (黃天太), the Administratrix of the Estate of LEE LAW DAI (李羅帶), Deceased 2nd Defendant

_______________

(By Counterclaim)

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Saunders in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 27 June 2014
Date of Decision on Summary Assessment of Costs: 11 July 2014

______________________________________________

DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

______________________________________________

1.On 30 July 2013, I handed down judgment in this matter. A costs order nisi was made, and on 27 June 2014, having heard from counsel for the company, and not calling upon counsel for Ms Cham, I made the costs order absolute.

2.Ms Cham, having succeeded in resisting a variation of a costs order, is entitled to her costs for the date of the hearing.  At my request, the solicitors for Ms Cham have submitted a statement of costs for summary assessment, and the solicitors for the company have submitted their objections to that statement.  The total amount claimed for solicitors was $36,700 together with counsel’s brief fee was $30,000.

3.I accept the contention by the solicitors for the company that the time claimed in respect of the work undertaken by the company’s solicitors is excessive.  This was a straightforward matter, being dealt with by solicitors who were involved in the trial, and which justified no more than a 30 minute attendance on the client, a one hour attendance on counsel, and little in the way of documentary work, other than the preparation of a straightforward one page summons.  The company’s solicitors’ costs are fixed at $15,000.

4.It is right that counsel was involved in the trial, and was accordingly familiar with the matter, and the basis upon which the costs order nisi was made.  Notwithstanding that, it was necessary for counsel to consider the company’s counsel’s skeleton, and to prepare a skeleton in reply.  I am satisfied that counsel’s brief fee of $30,000 is perfectly reasonable and it is accordingly approved.

5.The costs are accordingly fixed at $45,000.

(John Saunders)
Deputy High Court Judge

Mr Edward T C Chan, instructed by Lawrence K Y Lo & Co, for the plaintiff by original action and the 1st and 2nd defendants by counterclaim

Mr Alan Kwong, instructed by Jimmie K S Wong & Partners, for the defendant by original action and the plaintiff by counterclaim

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2619/2005