SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

The Master held Mr Egan's daily refresher was not excessive or unreasonable given the litigation's complexity, the skill required, voluminous documentation, importance to clients and sums at stake; fees paid to opposing counsel are relevant but not determinative, and the taxing master must apply the factors in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Eric Edward Hotung; 1st Defendant: Ho Yuen Ki; 2nd Defendant: Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung; 3rd Defendant: Sean Eric McLean Hotung; 4th Defendant: Hillhead Limited; 5th Defendant: Sheridan Patricia; 6th Defendant: Gabrielle Marie Hotung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2008
Case Number
HCMP2820/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Review of Taxation (costs) / Judicial Review of Taxation (master's Decision)
Outcome
Review dismissed
Legal Topics
Refresher Fee, Party and Party Costs, Assessment of Counsel's Fees, Comparative Fee Evidence
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Taxation Trusts Law Refresher Fee Party and Party Costs Assessment of Counsel's Fees Comparative Fee Evidence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Edward Hotung

Plaintiff

Ho Yuen Ki

1st Defendant

Anthony Eric Ryan Hotung

2nd Defendant

Sean Eric McLean Hotung

3rd Defendant

Hillhead Limited

4th Defendant

Sheridan Patricia

5th Defendant

Gabrielle Marie Hotung

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Review of Taxation (costs) / Judicial Review of Taxation (master's Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the daily refresher charged by counsel (Mr Egan) was excessive or unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether fees paid to opposing counsel may be used as a yardstick on party-and-party taxation
  3. 3 Application of the factors in O.62/App/28 when assessing counsel's refresher

Ratio Decidendi

The Master held Mr Egan's daily refresher was not excessive or unreasonable given the litigation's complexity, the skill required, voluminous documentation, importance to clients and sums at stake; fees paid to opposing counsel are relevant but not determinative, and the taxing master must apply the factors in O.62/App/28 when exercising discretion. The review was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed

Orders

  • Review dismissed with costs to the 2nd Defendant, taxed if not agreed