鄭宗妍 對 鄭宗建
The Court held that on the party-and-party basis the respondent was entitled to recover necessary and proper costs; the hourly rate of HK$5,800 for the respondent's near-20-year solicitor was appropriate, instructed counsel's fees were not excessive, specific billed items B1, C1, C3 and D2 required reduction, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCA 130
- Parties
- Plaintiff: CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA (鄭宗妍); Defendant: CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW (鄭宗建)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 8 February 2023
- Case Number
- CACV434/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Costs Assessment (post Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the appeal assessed on the party-and-party basis.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Party and Party Costs, Solicitor Hourly Rates, Assessment of Necessary and Proper Costs
- 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
CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA (鄭宗妍)
Plaintiff
CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW (鄭宗建)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Assessment (post Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is liable to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal
- 2 Appropriate hourly rate for the respondent's solicitor with ~20 years' experience
- 3 Whether the respondent needed to instruct the particular senior solicitor rather than a less experienced solicitor
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that on the party-and-party basis the respondent was entitled to recover necessary and proper costs; the hourly rate of HK$5,800 for the respondent's near-20-year solicitor was appropriate, instructed counsel's fees were not excessive, specific billed items B1, C1, C3 and D2 required reduction, and the respondent's costs were assessed at HK$70,000 to be paid by the appellant.
Court Disposition
Appellant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the appeal assessed on the party-and-party basis.
Orders
- Appellant CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA to pay respondent CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW costs in the sum of HK$70,000 assessed on the party-and-party basis
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 434/2021 [2023] HKCA 130 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事上訴 民事上訴案件2021年第434號 （原高等法院雜項案件編號2020年第2339號） ____________ 原告人 CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA （鄭宗妍） 與 被告人 CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW （鄭宗建） ____________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官區慶祥 判案書日期： 2023年2月 8 日 判決書（訟費） 上訴法庭副庭長朱芬齡頒發上訴法庭判決書： 本庭在2022年10月18日頒發判案書，駁回原告人的上訴，並作出訟費命令，命令原告人支付被告人的上訴訟費，金額以簡易程序評定。 被告人在2022年在10月19日提交了循簡易程序評定訟費的清單。原告人在2022年11月1日委任律師代表她，並提交反對書。 就是次訟費評定，本庭須指出下列幾項原則： 是次評定是按「訴訟各方對評基準」進行。在這個原則下，原告人（作為支付方）需要支付被告人（作為收取方）在上訴中為維護其利益的所有必需的或適當的費用。 代表被告人的盧律師在上訴進行期間，有接近20年執業資格，5,800元的每小時收費率是恰當的，沒有超越一般評定訟費的標準。 以本案的情況，本庭不同意原告人的陳述，即被告人不需要委任盧律師，而應委任年資8年的其他律師代表他。 本庭亦不同意代表被告人的大律師的費用過高。 經考慮上述原則，以及鑑於本上訴涉及的文件及論據與原訟法庭聆訊時的文件及爭議點基本上相若，按「訴訟各方對評」基準，被告人代表律師在以下幾方面用上的時間應予以下調：(1) B1（影印費用）; (2) C1（與當事人聯絡）； (3) C3（與大律師聯絡）；及 (4) D2（閱讀文件）。本庭把被告人的訟費評定為港幣70,000元。 （朱芬齡） 高等法院 上訴法庭副庭長 （張澤祐） 高等法院 上訴法庭法官 （區慶祥） 高等法院 上訴法庭法官 原告人：由江炳滔律師事務所有限法律責任合夥代表 被告人：由侯劉李楊律師行代表。