MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD

MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD

The Master allowed the review in full: the discretion under Order 62 permits departure from suggested scales where a fee-earner demonstrates specialist skills, substantial responsibility and cost-effectiveness; Mr Barrett's pivotal role, specialist valuation expertise and the limited additional cost to the lay client justified allowance of the billed rate of $2,600 per hour; accordingly the taxed rate was restored and the Receiving Party awarded the costs of the review fixed at $52,000.

Citation
MAK\'S CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LTD
Parties
Claimant/applicant: MAK S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED; Respondent/respondent: SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 2003
Case Number
HCCT20/2002
Procedural Posture
Arbitration; Taxation Review / Taxation Review of Party and Party Bill of Costs (review Before Master De Souza)
Outcome
Review allowed in full; billed hourly rate of Mr Barrett restored to $2,600 per hour; review costs awarded to Receiving Party
Legal Topics
Hourly Rates, Taxation of Costs, Order 62 Rule 28 a, Role of Non Qualified Advocates, Duplication of Costs, Costs of Review
Source Language
EN
Arbitration Costs and Taxation Civil Procedure Construction Law Professional Conduct/advocacy Rights Hourly Rates Taxation of Costs Order 62 Rule 28 a +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAK S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED

Claimant/applicant

SUN FOOK KONG (CIVIL) LIMITED

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Arbitration; Taxation Review / Taxation Review of Party and Party Bill of Costs (review Before Master De Souza)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a non-practicing barrister/qualified quantity surveyor (Mr Barrett) may be awarded his billed hourly rate on taxation despite not being a qualified solicitor
  2. 2 Whether Law Society suggested scales and Order 62 guidance are binding on taxing masters
  3. 3 Whether Order 62 rule 28A (litigant in person allowance) applies by analogy

Ratio Decidendi

The Master allowed the review in full: the discretion under Order 62 permits departure from suggested scales where a fee-earner demonstrates specialist skills, substantial responsibility and cost-effectiveness; Mr Barrett's pivotal role, specialist valuation expertise and the limited additional cost to the lay client justified allowance of the billed rate of $2,600 per hour; accordingly the taxed rate was restored and the Receiving Party awarded the costs of the review fixed at $52,000.

Court Disposition

Review allowed in full; billed hourly rate of Mr Barrett restored to $2,600 per hour; review costs awarded to Receiving Party

Orders

  • Allow the full billed hourly rate of $2,600 per hour for Mr Paul Nicholas Barrett as claimed on the party-and-party bill
  • Receiving Party to have costs of the application for review, including today's hearing, fixed at $4,000 per hour x 13 hours = $52,000