郭美霞 對 趙榕
The court awarded $13,000 for the summons and $50,000 for the appeal because the tasks were simple, did not require very senior counsel, contact time was limited, and the defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's costs statements.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 491
- Parties
- Plaintiff: KWOK MEI HA MAY (郭美霞); Defendant: CHIU YUNG (趙榕)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 8 April 2022
- Case Number
- CACV545/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the plaintiff for both the summons and the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Stay of Execution, Level of Counsel, Quantum of 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
KWOK MEI HA MAY (郭美霞)
Plaintiff
CHIU YUNG (趙榕)
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs for the summons to stay execution
- 2 Appropriate quantum of costs for the summons
- 3 Appropriate quantum of costs for the appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The court awarded $13,000 for the summons and $50,000 for the appeal because the tasks were simple, did not require very senior counsel, contact time was limited, and the defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's costs statements.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the plaintiff for both the summons and the appeal.
Orders
- Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the summons in the sum of $13,000 HKD.
- Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the appeal in the sum of $50,000 HKD.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACV 545/2020 [2022] HKCA 491 香港特別行政區 高等法院 上訴法庭 民事上訴案件2020年第545號 (原本案件編號:高等法院民事訴訟2015年第3079號) 原告人 KWOK MEI HA MAY (郭美霞) 對 被告人 CHIU YUNG (趙榕) 主審法官: 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐 高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧 高等法院上訴法庭法官周家明 原告人訟費陳述書日期: 2022年1月20日及2022年2月18日 訟費判決書日期: 2022年4月8日 訟費判決書 上訴法庭法官袁家寧頒發上訴法庭訟費判決書: 本案的背景,已在本庭2022年2月11日頒發的判案書(下稱「該判案書」)詳述。 2021年12月30日,被告人(上訴人)存檔傳票(下稱「該傳票」)要求暫緩執行一些原訟法庭的命令(該判案書第5段列出),被本庭撤銷(看該判案書第19段)。 另外,本庭亦在該判案書駁回了被告人的上訴。 在該判案書第20段,本庭命令被告人支付原告人上訴案及該傳票的訟費,並作出有關的命令。被告人沒有就原告人的訟費陳述書,存檔反對書。 有關該傳票的訟費,本庭認為事務律師所需做的工作簡單,無需年資很高的律師處理,合理的訟費總括應為$13,000。 至於上訴的訟費,本庭認為事務律師的工作無需差不多全部都由年資很高的律師處理,而且與當事人聯絡的時間亦無需那麼長,合理的訟費總括應為$50,000。 (張澤祐) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 (袁家寧) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 (周家明) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 原告人:由黃許律師行代表。 被告人:無律師代表。