V • GRASS FASHION CO LTD v. HK VGRASS DRESS LTD

HCA 1419/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1419 OF 2014

____________

BETWEEN

	V • GRASS FASHION COMPANY LIMITED (維格娜絲時裝股份有限公司)	Plaintiff
	and
	HK VGRASS DRESS LIMITED (香港維格娜絲服飾有限公司)	Defendant

____________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers

Date of Plaintiff’s Statement of Costs: 31 October 2014

Date of Decision (Paper Disposal): 21 November 2014

______________________________________________

DECISION ON SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

______________________________________________

 

1. On 29 October 2014, upon the plaintiff’s application, I ordered default judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant. I further ordered the defendant to forthwith pay to the plaintiff the costs of the present action including the costs of the application for judgment, such costs to be summarily assessed on paper as directed below:

(a)   the plaintiff be at liberty to lodge with court and serve on the defendant its statement of costs within 7 days from the date of the order; and

(b)   the defendant be at liberty to lodge with court and serve on the plaintiff its list of objections within 14 days thereafter.

2. On 31 October 2014, the plaintiff served its statement of costs on the defendant by leaving the same at its registered office.

3. To date, the defendant has not lodged its list of objections.

4. As to the quantum of the plaintiff’s costs, I make four general observations.  First, the present action was all along uncontested.  Secondly, the claim is largely premised on documentation, ie the plaintiff’s trademarks and the defendant’s company name.  Thirdly, costs will be assessed on party-and-party basis such that only costs that are necessary and reasonable will be allowed.  Fourthly, given that the present action fell within a small compass, the time claimed for attendance on client and for perusal and preparation of documents is excessive.

5. Bearing in mind the above, I consider the following items in the plaintiff’s statement of costs should be reduced:

Item	Type of work	Time claimed (minutes)	Time allowed (minutes)	Amount reduced (HK$)
C1	Attendance on client	220 (PT)	150 (PT)	4,666.67
D1	Preparation of documents	300 (PT)	240 (PT)	4,000.00
D2	Perusal of documents	120 (PT)	60 (PT)	4,000.00
Total amount reduced				12,666.67

6. The plaintiff’s costs under paragraph 7 of my order dated 29 October 2014 is therefore assessed at $35,866.33.

	(Marlene Ng)
	Deputy High Court Judge

Mr Peter Tang, of Chan, Tang & Kwok, for the plaintiff

Defendant, unrepresented