West Coast International Trading LtdT/A Dandelion Fine Arts v. Chelesa Art Co Ltd

HCMP 1228/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1228 OF 2014

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1636 OF 2010)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP and Kwan JA

Date of Decision on Costs: 17 September 2014

________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

________________________

Hon Kwan JA (giving the decision on costs of the Court):

1.On 3 September 2014, we gave judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal out of time and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the application on a party and party basis with gross sum assessment. Pursuant to the directions in our judgment, the defendant’s solicitors lodged a composite statement of costs on 4 September and the plaintiff served a “list of objections” on 10 September.

2.The composite statement of costs gives a total amount of $142,282, which is the sum of the two statements of costs ($18,284 + $123,998) placed before us at the hearing on 27 August.  In our judgment at paragraph 11, we remarked that the work done by the defendant’s solicitors and counsel was “more than what was reasonably necessary to properly resist this application”.  The defendant’s solicitors have not taken note of what the court said and simply claim the same amount as before without making any adjustment to arrive at an amount that may be regarded as reasonable, proper and proportionate to the application.

3.The response of the plaintiff’s solicitors is also misconceived.  In objecting to some of the items claimed as excessive, the plaintiff’s solicitors stated that the other party should “justify” the time claimed and that those items of work done should be “subject to the production of relevant attendance notes and correspondences”.  This is a summary assessment of costs.  The receiving party is not required to produce supporting documents as in a normal taxation of costs.

4.In assessing the reasonable amount of fees to be awarded to the defendant, we approach the matter on the basis that the work done should not be “more than what was reasonably necessary to properly resist this application”.

5.Other than the fees of counsel ($18,000), which we allow in full, we would reduce the solicitors’ costs of $124,282 substantially.  We do not propose to reduce the hourly rates of any of the fee earners as submitted by the plaintiff, but would reduce the fees claimed on the basis that it would not be reasonable to engage three fee earners on certain items of work.

6.The defendant’s solicitors lodged in court four bundles of documents in two sets.  Photocopying charges of $3,372 were incurred.  Many of the documents cannot conceivably be of use to the application.  Although this item is not objected to by the plaintiff, we do not think it right to allow the amount in full.  On a broad brush basis, we would allow $1,500 for copying charges.  The sub-total allowed for item B is $2,270.

7.Under item C, $35,620 is claimed for attendances on client, the other side, counsel and the court.  We do not think the attendances of three fee earners were reasonable and proper, apart from the time spent.  We would reduce the amount to $11,440.

8.Item D is for professional work comprising preparation and perusal of documents, preparation for hearing and attendance at hearing.  The total claimed is $84,520.  The work done was excessive and disproportionate to the application.  Nor do we think it reasonable and proper to engage three fee earners for the preparation and perusal of documents.  We reduce the amount to $30,320.

9.The total amount of fees we allow to the defendant is $62,030.

Hau, Lau, Li & Yeung, for the Plaintiff (Applicant)

Kao, Lee & Yip, for the Defendant (Respondent)