周軍英 v. 樊少皇AND ANOTHER
HTML content
HCA 202/2017
[2019] HKCFI 1255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 202 OF 2017
__________
| BETWEEN | ||
| 周軍英 | Plaintiff | |
and | ||
| 樊少皇 | 1st Defendant | |
| 蔡銘森 | 2nd Defendant | |
__________
Before: Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung SC in Chambers
Date of Written Statement of Costs by the 2nd Defendant: 7 January 2019
Date of Written List of Objections by the Plaintiff: 21 January 2019
Date of Decision on Costs: 10 May 2019
________________________
DECISION ON COSTS
________________________
1. On 7 February 2018, the plaintiff (“P”) obtained a summary judgment against the 2nd defendant (“D2”). D2 appealed. On 24 December 2018, I handed down my Decision (the “Decision”) allowing his appeal. I granted him unconditional leave to defend. On the question of costs, I made an Order nisi that the costs of and occasioned by P’s Summons dated 20 March 2017 for the Order 14 Application (including the hearing on 7 February 2018 before the Master and the appeal) be to D2, to be taxed if not agreed. I also gave directions on the making of submissions for variation or summary assessment.
2. On 7 January 2019, Messrs Chih wrote in for summary assessment pursuant to Order 62, rule 9A. A Statement of Costs was attached, which I have considered. The amount stated thereon is $460,671.
3. Messrs Henry Wan & Yeung on 21 January 2019 filed on P’s behalf her List of Objections, which I have also considered. The total deduction if all objections are upheld is stated to be $211,766.
4. In my view, the claimed costs of $460,671 is unreasonably high for an Order 14 hearing and appeal. I note in particular Item D2 for “considering” by two fee-earners of inter alia a number of affirmations, Orders, submissions etc. The total time incurred was stated to be nearly 36.5 hours ($147,383). That in my view is not justified. I note also that some of the affirmations said to have been considered were not exclusively prepared and filed for the Order 14 Application (see §4 of the Decision). There are also other duplications of efforts and costs.
5. Having taken all relevant matters into account, I allow the application for summary assessment. Adopting a broad brush approach, I summarily assess the costs to be $300,000. I make no further costs order in respect of the application for summary assessment.
| (Keith Yeung SC) | |
| Deputy High Court Judge |
Written submissions from Henry Wan & Yeung, former Solicitorfor the plaintiff
Written submissions from Chih, Solicitors, for the 2nd defendant