RE B. F. CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
- Citation
- RE B. F. CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 22 June 2007
- Posture
- Companies Winding Up Proceedings (application for Release of Provisional Liquidators' Report and Costs) / Costs Assessment After Refusal of Application for Release of Report
- Case number
- HCCW691/2004
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Decision
- 22 June 2007
- Posture
- Companies Winding Up Proceedings (application for Release of Provisional Liquidators' Report and Costs) / Costs Assessment After Refusal of Application for Release of Report
- Case number
- HCCW691/2004
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Registrar found the overall time and sums claimed to be generally reasonable but made specific reductions (45 minutes from JT, 7 minutes and 10 minutes from NB totaling $2,867) and thereby assessed the recoverable costs at $21,360, to be paid from monies held by the Provisional Liquidators.
Court disposition
Costs assessed in favour of the Provisional Liquidators in the sum of $21,360; costs to be deducted from monies held by the Provisional Liquidators.
Orders
- Assessment of costs awarded to the Provisional Liquidators: $21,360
- The claimed sum of $24,227 is reduced by $2,867 resulting in assessed costs of $21,360
- The assessed sum of $21,360 is to be deducted from the money held by the Provisional Liquidators
02
Material facts
Parties
B. F. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
CompanyProvisional Liquidators of B. F. Construction Company Limited
Provisional Liquidators Counsel: Messrs. KennedysNg & Partners
Respondent SolicitorsAmounts and remedies
- Claimed Amount by Provisional Liquidators' Solicitors: HKD 24,227
- Total Deductions Ordered: HKD 2,867
- Assessed Costs Awarded: HKD 21,360
03
Procedural history
Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings (application for Release of Provisional Liquidators' Report and Costs) / Costs Assessment After Refusal of Application for Release of Report
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the solicitors' time and costs claimed were reasonable and recoverable
- 02
What specific time entries should be disallowed or reduced and by how much
- 03
Whether the assessed costs should be paid out of monies held by the Provisional Liquidators
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Provisional Liquidators, through Messrs. Kennedys, claimed $24,227 for work related to the application for release of the Misfeasance Report and maintained the time spent was reasonable given file review and correspondence.
- Respondent
- Ng & Partners objected to particular time entries as excessive, proposing deductions (notably 45 minutes from JT, 7 minutes and 10 minutes from NB) and arguing senior solicitor time should not be spent on mechanical tasks.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court's supervisory role in costs assessment (Companies winding-up proceedings) / Companies Ordinance context
Costs awarded must be reasonable and proportionate to the work actually necessary for the application
- 02
Registrar's assessment and practice in taxation of costs (Registrar C. Chan, decision)
Routine or mechanical tasks should be performed by junior staff or costs draftsmen, not necessarily by senior solicitors
- 03
Companies Ordinance context and the Registrar's order in these winding-up proceedings
Costs incurred by Provisional Liquidators in relation to court applications may be ordered to be paid out of funds held by the Provisional Liquidators
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Registrar found the overall time and sums claimed to be generally reasonable but made specific reductions (45 minutes from JT, 7 minutes and 10 minutes from NB totaling $2,867) and thereby assessed the recoverable costs at $21,360, to be paid from monies held by the Provisional Liquidators.
Obiter and limits
- Deciding the application on paper did not necessarily save costs because additional correspondence and file review became necessary
- Engaging two solicitors on a relatively simple application was unnecessary and increased costs
- Where a solicitor recently takes over a file from predecessors, extra time for file familiarization may be incurred but should be objectively justified
Court disposition
Costs assessed in favour of the Provisional Liquidators in the sum of $21,360; costs to be deducted from monies held by the Provisional Liquidators.
- Assessment of costs awarded to the Provisional Liquidators: $21,360
- The claimed sum of $24,227 is reduced by $2,867 resulting in assessed costs of $21,360
- The assessed sum of $21,360 is to be deducted from the money held by the Provisional Liquidators
Source and reliance status
Court of First Instance · 22 June 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of First Instance
Judgment· 22 June 2007
bjbj HCCW 691/2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMPANIES WINDING-UP PROCEEDINGS NO. 691 OF 2004 _____ IN THE MATTER of the Companies Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the Laws of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and IN THE MATTER of B. F. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED _____ Coram: Before Mr. Registrar C. Chan in Chambers Date of Hearing: 8 June 2007 Date of Decision: 22 June 2007 _____
D E C I S I O N _____ On 28 February 2007 I refused the Company s application for release of the Report prepared by the Provisional Liquidators and I order that the costs be to the Provisional Liquidators and to be assessed by me.
2. On 3 April 2007 Messrs. Kennedys, solicitors for the Provisional Liquidators ( ), submitted its Statement of Costs by which the PLs asked for a total sum of $24,227.00. My first impression is that the amount claimed is on the high side. The application was disposed of by me on paper without a hearing. It was my assumption that time and costs could be saved without attending court.
3. My assumption does not prove to be correct. The parties had to prepare quite a number of correspondences more than usual, partly because I had not given any specific directions in the conduct of the proceedings.
4. The total time spent according to my calculation Mr. Nigel Bacon ( ) spent 2 hours 27 minutes while his assistant Ms. Tse Mei Ling ( ) 6 hours 18 minutes. The application only dealt with a minor issue. No law has been cited notwithstanding JT claimed that she had made research for 30 minutes. I do not see any particular reason why two solicitors were engaged in such relatively simple job. As I understand, the case was formerly handled by another solicitor firm for the PLs and Messrs. Kennedys had taken over the case only shortly before when the application was made. Resulting from this, extra time was spent, for example, Kennedys had to go through the file to see whether their predecessor had lodged any objection to the application which was originally made to Kwan J. After considering all the items, I find generally the amounts of time spent and the sums claimed are reasonable, except for those items to which requisitions were raised by Messrs. Ng and Partners as set out below.
7. The 1st objection is related to item 1 where it is stated that NB considered the application made by Ng & Partners as contained in the letter of 28 December 2006 which initiated the application. It was a 2-page letter setting out the background. NB needed time to consider the matter. I do not find it justified to deduct the small difference of 3 minutes. I overruled the objection.
8. The 2nd objection is related to item 12: the PLs solicitor charged for preparing a reply dated 11 January 2007. In the letter, Kennedys confirmed no comment had been made by its predecessor. The letter also set out the facts and background of the matter. It is obvious that some time was spent in reading through the file and trying to locate the necessary relevant documents. I am convinced that the time of 2 hours required to prepare the letter is excessive. I deduct 45 minutes from the JT s claim.
9. The 3rd objection is related to item 15: NB perused and considered the reply of Ng and Partners to the Kennedys letter of 11 January above mentioned. It is a short letter re-iterating its position. I agree that 5 minutes would be sufficient and I deduct 7 minutes from NB.
10. The last objection is related to NB approving the calculations. Ng and Partners suggested to deduct 10 minutes. My view is that a solicitor of such seniority should not be involved in such tedious mechanical work. I would have suggested that such work be carried out by a law costs draftsman, a trainee solicitor or at most JT. I agree to the deduction of 10 minutes from NB.
11. The deductions are summarized as follows: Objection No. Item No. Result Paragraph above Costs deducted No deduction 45 mins from JT $1,875 7 mins from NB $408 10 mins from NB $584 Costs to be deducted: $2,867 12. I assess the costs awarded to the Provisional Liquidators in respect of the Company s application for release of the Misfeasance Report to be $21,360 (i.e. the amount of $24,227 claimed less $2,867). Such sum is to be deducted from the money held the Provisional Liquidators. (Christopher C. Chan) Registrar Messrs. Kennedys for the former Provisional Liquidators of the Company, excused f 1udk 1udk
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T U V & 6" Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.