明高置業有限公司 對 上訴審裁小組(建築物條例)
The court found the time and amounts claimed by the Building Authority were reasonable; the two lawyers' total of 16 hours 24 minutes was reasonable; the applicant was ordered to pay assessed costs to the Building Authority in the sum of HK$101,512.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 3583
- Parties
- Applicant: 明高置業有限公司; Respondent: 上訴審裁小組(建築物條例); Interested Party: 建築事務監督
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2024
- Case Number
- HCAL533/2024
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional and Administrative Law (judicial Review) / Costs Assessment (taxation)
- Outcome
- Applicant ordered to pay Building Authority costs assessed at HK$101,512.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Interim Costs Order, Buildings Ordinance Appeal, Reasonableness of Legal Fees
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
明高置業有限公司
Applicant
上訴審裁小組(建築物條例)
Respondent
建築事務監督
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Administrative Law (judicial Review) / Costs Assessment (taxation)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the time and fees claimed by the Building Authority's lawyers were reasonable and recoverable
- 2 Whether the combined 16 hours 24 minutes for two lawyers was reasonable
- 3 Quantification of the taxable costs payable by the applicant
Ratio Decidendi
The court found the time and amounts claimed by the Building Authority were reasonable; the two lawyers' total of 16 hours 24 minutes was reasonable; the applicant was ordered to pay assessed costs to the Building Authority in the sum of HK$101,512.
Court Disposition
Applicant ordered to pay Building Authority costs assessed at HK$101,512.
Orders
- Applicant to pay costs to the Building Authority in the sum of HK$101,512.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HCAL 533/2024 [2024] HKCFI 3583 香港特別行政區 高等法院原訟法庭 民事司法管轄權 憲法及行政訴訟案2024年第533號 ______________ 申請人 明高置業有限公司 及 建議答辯人 上訴審裁小組(建築物條例) 建議有利害關係方 建築事務監督 ______________ 主審法官: 高等法院原訟法庭法官楊家雄內庭書面處理 建議有利害關係方訟費陳述書 及書面回應日期: 2024年11月20日及12月3日 申請人反對書日期: 2024年11月26日 訟費判決書日期: 2024年12月13日 _____________________ 訟 費 判 決 書 _____________________ 就本申請的暫准訟費令,見本席於2024年10月31日頒下的判決書,而該暫准訟費令已成為絕對命令。 本席已考慮建築事務監督日期為2024年11月20日的訟費陳述書、申請人於2024年11月26日呈交的反對書及建築事務監督日期為2024年12月3日的回應。 就C1及C2,代表建築事務監督的政府律師明顯需要也有與當事人部門及與申請人或其律師聯絡及通訊,而所涉時間及金額也合理。 就D1-D6,本席認為建築事務監督列出2名律師所花總共16小時24分鐘合理。 經簡易程序評估,本席評定申請人須向建築事務監督支付的訟費為港幣101,512。 ( 楊家雄 ) 高等法院原訟法庭法官 申請人:由張淑姬趙之威律師行呈交反對書 建議有利害關係方:由律政司政府律師林韋名呈交訟費陳述書及 書面回應