LEE\'S CHICKEN LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE\'S CHICKEN (SAI WAN HO) LTD AND OTHERS
The court exercised its discretion on summary assessment and reduced the 5th Defendant's claimed costs from $136,852 to $80,000 because the application raised only a simple pleading point, involved no actual hearing, and the time charged by counsel was excessive notwithstanding that engaging counsel was reasonable.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCFI 446
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: LEE'S CHICKEN LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: KWON DONGHYUN; 1st Defendant: LEE'S CHICKEN (SAI WAN HO) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHEUNG'S CATERING SERVICES LIMITED; Defendant: 5th Defendant
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 17 February 2023
- Case Number
- HCIP40/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Intellectual Property Proceedings / Summary Assessment of Costs
- Outcome
- 5th Defendant's costs summarily assessed and allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out Application, Summary Assessment, Costs Reasonableness, Pleading Point
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LEE'S CHICKEN LIMITED
1st Plaintiff
KWON DONGHYUN
2nd Plaintiff
LEE'S CHICKEN (SAI WAN HO) LIMITED
1st Defendant
CHEUNG'S CATERING SERVICES LIMITED
2nd Defendant
5th Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Intellectual Property Proceedings / Summary Assessment of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 5th Defendant's claimed costs were reasonable and proportionate
- 2 Whether costs should be summarily assessed and reduced given no substantive hearing took place
- 3 Whether engagement of counsel and time spent were reasonable
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its discretion on summary assessment and reduced the 5th Defendant's claimed costs from $136,852 to $80,000 because the application raised only a simple pleading point, involved no actual hearing, and the time charged by counsel was excessive notwithstanding that engaging counsel was reasonable.
Court Disposition
5th Defendant's costs summarily assessed and allowed in part
Orders
- The 5th Defendant's claimed costs of $136,852 are reduced.
- The 5th Defendant is awarded costs summarily assessed at $80,000 to be paid by the Plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
bjbj HCIP 40/2022 [2023] HKCFI 446 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROCEEDINGS NO. 40 OF 2022 BETWEEN LEE S CHICKEN LIMITED 1st Plaintiff KWON DONGHYUN 2nd Plaintiff and LEE S CHICKEN (SAI WAN HO) LIMITED 1st Defendant CHEUNG S CATERING SERVICES LIMITED 2nd Defendant ( R gP 5_i`*t) 2022 Date of List of Objection: 17 November 2022 Date of Summary Assessment on Costs: 17 February 2023 ________________________________ S U M M A R Y A S S E S S M E N T ON C O S T S ________________________________ This is the summary assessment of costs incurred by the 5th Defendant in respect of his application to strike out the Plaintiffs claim against him ( the Application ). The 5th Defendant claims a total sum of $136,852 for his costs. The Application was made on a pleading point without the filing of supporting affirmation. The Application was taken out on 16 September 2022 and was listed for a 3 minutes hearing on 28 October 2022. However, the Plaintiffs on 19 October 2022 agreed to adjourn the hearing on 28 October 2022. On 27 October 2022, the parties agreed for the amendments of the Statement of Claim and for the 5th Defendant to withdraw the Application with costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs to be assessed on a summary basis. In my judgment, the sum claimed by the 5th Defendant is excessive. I have taken into account the explanation given by the 5th Defendant s legal representatives that they still need to take proper instructions from their client for the preparation of the Application. Yet, the Application was not a complicated one. It involved a pleading point which should not have required the taking of detailed instructions. Further, there was no actual hearing for the Application, and so the sum claimed by the 5th Defendant is excessive. In so far as counsel s fee is concerned, the first call-over hearing on 28 October 2022 also served as a direction hearing for the whole case. I agree that engagement of counsel was reasonable taking into account the then progress of the case. Yet the time spent on the conference was excessive. On the whole, I summarily assess the 5th Defendant s costs in the total sum of $80,000. (David Lok) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Cheung & Liu, for the Plaintiffs Eva Wong & Co., for the 5th Defendant No taPE h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h sl h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) gdo/ gdo/ qf\R\ h I) h I) h I) ypeyayaYya h I) h I) h I) h I) gd9Gk uqieq h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h9Gk h9Gk h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h404 hB:~ gdC{ ~zlaz h"Gc h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) h I) gdOA, &`#$ gdGO PAGE - PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V wngngngngngngngngngng h"Gc hOA, hOA, hOA, h I) gdC{ & #$ & #$ & #$ & #$ [Content_Types].xml _rels/.rels theme/theme/themeManager.xml K Y, sQ}# theme/theme/theme1.xml $O}) Xp90 +PHI| PP yu 9xu5 fs+W VF7H q=. 8}d- qyI@ j!Q_ jyV` |PZ+ T ""p < 4V O&x$ A8>v ;EUC n 8r *~P(5 .}x E /,EE\} theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.rels 5 6?$Q K(M&$R(.1 [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK theme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?> <a:clrMap xmlns:a="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/drawingml/2006/main" bg1="lt1" tx1="dk1" bg2="lt2" tx2="dk2" accent1="accent1" accent2="accent2" accent3="accent3" accent4="accent4" accent5="accent5" accent6="accent6" hlink="hlink" folHlink="folHlink"/> [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml *0Sr <4a& qfEO-zQc` #H5| uFXIP% drs/downrev.xmlL @dg b6NA [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml WPn \k GQDu L@cC} Rt_, drs/downrev.xmlL !kZO K(dFC [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml lCpe 6k(w N'.< V}>|%a (v.W "^*I,}B drs/downrev.xmlL z+vB ?Ro&^ }%mo QIrk [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml 9/L)Z0* %=C %PUZ 5u9V ZdGAC _4fQ drs/downrev.xmlL @dg b6NA [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml :m9X#u N'., _fgOG 5v"^JI< drs/downrev.xmlL !kZO K(dFC [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK [Content_Types].xml dlyLho ;d]6 yJ.; _rels/.rels fLV:* ]m@= T;GI b9`5 drs/e2oDoc.xml $mXh ^%#`m iylC *r!q @#zV 'Ky~"? p>t# SJ(f o~sP [%w?v drs/downrev.xmlL z+vB ?Ro&^ }%mo QIrk [Content_Types].xmlPK _rels/.relsPK drs/e2oDoc.xmlPK drs/downrev.xmlPK P< jx>& &tBL H; < S"<,w Cguq Cguq N#"{4 14{> High Court Normal.dotm Windows User Microsoft Office Word Judiciary Title <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?><b:Sources SelectedStyle="\APA.XSL" StyleName="APA" xmlns:b="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography" xmlns="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"></b:Sources> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?> <ds:datastoreItem ds:itemID="{C34FDE58-009A-4130-AD7F-C1DEAC256273}" xmlns:ds="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/customXml"><ds:schemaRefs><ds:schemaRef ds:uri="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/officeDocument/2006/bibliography"/></ds:schemaRefs></ds:datastoreItem> Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8