MICHAEL CHEN KANG HUANG AND ANOTHER v. PETER LIT MA

MICHAEL CHEN KANG HUANG AND ANOTHER v. PETER LIT MA

Although the solicitors' hourly rates were reasonable in light of the case's commercial and international complexity, the overall bill was excessive; on a broad gross assessment the appropriate sum is one half of the claimed amount, with counsel's fee to remain as claimed, resulting in an assessed costs award of $260,000.

Citation
MICHAEL CHEN KANG HUANG AND ANOTHER v. PETER LIT MA
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Michael Chen Kang Huang; 2nd Plaintiff: Euromat Worldwide Limited; Defendant: Peter Lit Ma
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 November 2006
Case Number
HCA218/2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (security for Costs and Mareva Injunction Issues) / Gross Assessment of Costs Under Order 69 R.9 RHC
Outcome
Gross assessment of successful Plaintiffs' costs reduced from $520,000 to $260,000 in favour of the Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Mareva Injunction, Undertaking in Damages, Costs Assessment, Gross Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Costs Commercial Litigation Injunctions Security for Costs Mareva Injunction Undertaking in Damages Costs Assessment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Chen Kang Huang

1st Plaintiff

Euromat Worldwide Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Peter Lit Ma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (security for Costs and Mareva Injunction Issues) / Gross Assessment of Costs Under Order 69 R.9 RHC

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hourly rates charged by solicitors were reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the time claimed was excessive or involved duplication
  3. 3 Whether counsel's fee should be reduced

Ratio Decidendi

Although the solicitors' hourly rates were reasonable in light of the case's commercial and international complexity, the overall bill was excessive; on a broad gross assessment the appropriate sum is one half of the claimed amount, with counsel's fee to remain as claimed, resulting in an assessed costs award of $260,000.

Court Disposition

Gross assessment of successful Plaintiffs' costs reduced from $520,000 to $260,000 in favour of the Plaintiffs

Orders

  • Gross assessment of costs awarded to the Plaintiffs in the sum of $260,000
  • Counsel's fee to remain as claimed