SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

SEAN ERIC MCLEAN HOTUNG v. HILLHEAD LTD

The taxation review is dismissed: the court held Mr Egan's daily refresher of $70,000 was not excessive or unreasonable given the complexity, volume of documentation, significance of the trusts dispute, and counsel's contribution; fees paid to opposing counsel may be taken into account but are not a conclusive yardstick.

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: Hotung Shea Gabrielle Marie Hotung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2008
Case Number
HCMP4511/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil (review of Taxation) / Review (taxation)
Outcome
Review dismissed
Legal Topics
Refresher Fees, Counsel Fees, Party and Party Costs, Taxation of Costs, Order 62 Appendix
Source Language
EN
Costs (taxation) Civil Procedure Trusts Refresher Fees Counsel Fees Party and Party Costs Taxation of Costs Order 62 Appendix

Case Brief

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

Hotung Shea Gabrielle Marie Hotung

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (review of Taxation) / Review (taxation)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel's daily refresher fee was excessive and unreasonable on party-and-party taxation
  2. 2 Whether the fees paid to opposing counsel may be used as a yardstick in assessing reasonableness of counsel's refresher
  3. 3 Application of the factors in 62/App/28 when exercising discretion on taxation

Ratio Decidendi

The taxation review is dismissed: the court held Mr Egan's daily refresher of $70,000 was not excessive or unreasonable given the complexity, volume of documentation, significance of the trusts dispute, and counsel's contribution; fees paid to opposing counsel may be taken into account but are not a conclusive yardstick.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed

Orders

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