DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND AOTHER

DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND AOTHER

The Master refused to vary his taxation decisions: he affirmed the allowed hourly rates ($4,000 for the partner, $2,500 for the junior solicitor in limited recoverable instances), upheld the allowance of counsel fees as falling within the necessary or proper test and not shown to be excessive, and dismissed the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
DAVID KONG v. PINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND AOTHER
Parties
Applicant/petitioner: Petitioner; Subject Company: Pine Development Limited; 2nd Respondent: DONG FUNG HOLDINGS LIMITED; 3rd Respondent: CHAN KIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2008
Case Number
HCCW322/2006
Procedural Posture
Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Review of Taxation
Outcome
Review dismissed; original taxation rulings upheld.
Legal Topics
Winding Up, Taxation of Costs, Hourly Rates for Solicitors, Counsel Fees, Provisional Liquidators
Source Language
en
Company Law Costs and Taxation Civil Procedure Winding Up Taxation of Costs Hourly Rates for Solicitors Counsel Fees Provisional Liquidators

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Petitioner

Applicant/petitioner

Pine Development Limited

Subject Company

DONG FUNG HOLDINGS LIMITED

2nd Respondent

CHAN KIN

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Winding Up Proceedings / Review of Taxation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the taxation decisions ought to be varied on review
  2. 2 Appropriate hourly rates for solicitors in taxation
  3. 3 Whether counsel's involvement met the necessary or proper test and whether counsel fees were excessive

Ratio Decidendi

The Master refused to vary his taxation decisions: he affirmed the allowed hourly rates ($4,000 for the partner, $2,500 for the junior solicitor in limited recoverable instances), upheld the allowance of counsel fees as falling within the necessary or proper test and not shown to be excessive, and dismissed the review, awarding costs of the two reviews to the Respondents to pay the Applicant and directing summary assessment by the Master.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed; original taxation rulings upheld.

Orders

  • Review dismissed
  • The 2nd and 3rd Respondents shall bear the costs of the Applicant in the two reviews of taxation, to be summarily assessed by the Master with 30 minutes reserved, failing agreement within 21 days from the date hereof