Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment of counsel fees

Legal area

Court

25 Feb 2022

GMEDIA TECHNOLOGY (BEIJING) CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 601
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP51/2019

Applying the broad‑brush summary assessment approach, the court found Sections C and D excessive and reduced them to HK$440,000, disallowed fees for a second counsel and allowed only Mr Philips B F Wong's counsel fee of HK$225,000, and assessed the defendants' costs of the application at a rounded sum of HK$680,000; the plaintiffs were ordered under the prior consent order to provide security for costs of HK$2.9 million by payment into court by the stated date.
5 Jan 2022

C.L. CHOW & MACKSION CHAN, SOLICITORS (a firm) v. CHAN PUI FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 15
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2461/2017

The Court apportioned costs according to the outcome of the four preliminary issues: because the plaintiff succeeded on the main disputed agreement (Issue 1) while defendants succeeded only on two discrete, minor issues (Issues 2 and 3) and Issue 4 was mixed, a fair and reasonable order is that defendants bear 50% of the plaintiff's costs of the trial of the preliminary issues, to be taxed if not agreed; the court declined to treat the matter as taxation or disciplinary proceedings against counsel and distinguished Bamrah on the facts.
18 Sept 2017

WONG CHI CHING v. BOCOM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD

Citation

WONG CHI CHING v. BOCOM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA362/2014

The Master dismissed the review because the plaintiff provided no valid grounds to disturb the taxation rulings: her late revision of objections was prejudicial and refused, the suggested arithmetic per-page reductions lacked legal basis, the time allowances were reasonable on review of the documents, and agreements reached at taxation are not set aside on her claimed mistaken belief; costs follow the event.
28 Mar 2008

FUNG WAI KUEN v. SEE WAH LUN

Citation

FUNG WAI KUEN v. SEE WAH LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1138/2004

The court applied the common fund standard (Order 62 r.28(4)) and concluded the solicitor hourly rate of HKD 4,000 and total hours claimed were reasonable; allowed the plaintiff's Parts 1–4 subject to modest reductions and specific disbursement adjustments, resulting in a net recoverable sum of HKD 1,535,156 under Paragraph 3; assessed Paragraph 4 (50% of defendant's counsel fees) at HKD 235,000; assessed Paragraph 5(b) counsel fees as HKD 657,500 in total and, after the contractual contributions totalling HKD 285,000, held HKD 372,500 to be borne personally by the plaintiff.
19 Feb 2003

SHAON LAL HIRANAND AND OTHERS v. DR HARI NAROOMAL HARILELA AND OTHERS

Citation

SHAON LAL HIRANAND AND OTHERS v. DR HARI NAROOMAL HARILELA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP15/2000

The court rejected the plaintiffs' general duplication argument absent clear and cogent evidence that Hong Kong counsel merely adopted Singapore materials without independent input; applied EMI Records test that indemnity costs include items unless unreasonable and exercised taxing-master powers under O.62 r.35 to uphold most of the Master's global assessment while reducing specific fees identified as excessive, resulting in the specified revised allowances and an order nisi that each party bears their own costs of the review.

Hong Kong Case Law

GMEDIA TECHNOLOGY (BEIJING) CO., LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TENCENT HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

C.L. CHOW & MACKSION CHAN, SOLICITORS (a firm) v. CHAN PUI FAT AND OTHERS

WONG CHI CHING v. BOCOM INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS CO LTD

FUNG WAI KUEN v. SEE WAH LUN

SHAON LAL HIRANAND AND OTHERS v. DR HARI NAROOMAL HARILELA AND OTHERS