Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Brief fees

Legal area

Court

30 May 2022

GENTLE SOAR LTD v. CMBC CAPITAL FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1559
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA678/2021

On summary assessment the judge reduced multiple contested items as excessive, applying the thrown away principle and prior authority, and summarily assessed the Further Evidence Summons costs at HK$971,300 and the Injunction Summons costs at HK$1,915,000, disallowing or reducing specific claimed items (communication hours, professional work hours, certain brief fees) as unreasonable.
26 Sept 2017

CYBERLAND (CHINA) LTD v. ZHANG WEI BING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CYBERLAND (CHINA) LTD v. ZHANG WEI BING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL3/2014

The Master applied the indemnity rule and case-specific evidence of necessity to uphold most allowances but reduced time on specific items where duplication, lack of proportionality or insufficient justification was shown: items 32, 46, 70.1-70.7 and 76 were revised downward; items 27.1 and 27.3 allowances were affirmed; solicitor research on one identified case (Big Island) was allowed; senior counsel's brief fee was allowed in full because it was quoted exclusive of further drafting and consultations and was reasonable in the circumstances; overall net deduction of 8.25 hours at HK$4,300/ho…
11 Oct 2016

LEE SIU HONG t/a HONG LEE & CO. (A FIRM) v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

LEE SIU HONG t/a HONG LEE & CO. (A FIRM) v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2216/2013

The master held that the majority of the disputed items were reasonably necessary because the applications were heard together and Deacons were newly instructed; where appropriate the master reduced quantum (time allowances) but refused to tax off the items or reduce counsel brief fees, concluding the fees and allowances were not excessive; the review application was dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff to be summarily assessed on papers.
6 Oct 2014

CEP LTD v. 無鍚市佳誠太陽能科技有限公司

Citation

CEP LTD v. 無鍚市佳誠太陽能科技有限公司
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/2014

The court exercised its discretion to fix security for costs at $442,030 after rejecting both parties' estimates as unrealistic, allowing assessed amounts for the security application costs, solicitors' fees, counsel fees (allowing a single reasonably competent counsel fee of $200,000), and disbursements, and ordered lodgement of that sum as security with stay and dismissal consequences if not complied with.
30 Jul 2014

FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4414/2001

The master concluded the counsel fees, while reflecting high quality advocacy, included services that went beyond what was necessary or proper on a party-and-party taxation and amounted to luxuries recoverable only on a solicitor-and-own-client basis; accordingly the reviews of taxation were dismissed and the prior allowances at taxation stand, with costs of the review to follow the event and a gross sum of HKD 12,900 awarded to the Plaintiff.
30 Sept 2013

GOTLAND ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. KWOK CHI YAU AND OTHERS

Citation

GOTLAND ENTERPRISES LIMITED v. KWOK CHI YAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4550/2003

Unused refreshers under the Vine Formula are disallowed even on indemnity taxation; the full brief fee is not treated as wholly wasted and instead a limited number of refreshers were allowed to reflect wasted hearing days and reasonable additional preparation (court allowed four refreshers in total for each of the two counsel and disallowed extravagant items including a third counsel and summary assessment fees); indemnity costs of and occasioned by the adjournment were awarded against the 1st to 3rd defendants and summary assessment fixed amounts were ordered (Plaintiff HKD475,500; 5th defen…
7 Oct 2009

LAU PIK NGAI ADA v. TO CHUN FUNG ALBERT

Citation

LAU PIK NGAI ADA v. TO CHUN FUNG ALBERT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1429/2008

Applying broad principles, the court rejected the defendant's major objections, allowed most solicitors' and disbursement items with only modest reductions for some time estimates, accepted the claimed solicitor hourly rate, allowed a substantial brief fee for counsel though deemed high for a half‑day argument, and summarily assessed solicitors' costs and disbursements at HK$38,000 and counsel's fee at HK$50,000, totalling HK$88,000 payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on a party‑and‑party basis with certificate for counsel; legal aid taxation of the Plaintiff's own costs to proceed.
25 Aug 2000

LEUNG KANG WAI v. NG YAT WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG KANG WAI v. NG YAT WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1224/1995

Leave to review out of time was refused because no satisfactory reason for delay was shown; the asserted mistake by counsel was not accepted as sufficient; even if accepted the substantive review lacked merit because counsel had done no preparatory work and therefore was not entitled to a significant portion of unused brief fees; review against advice was an afterthought and not permissible.
25 Aug 2000

LUI CHUN FAI v. NG YAT WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUI CHUN FAI v. NG YAT WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1086/1995

Leave to review out of time refused because applicants failed to show good reason for delay; additionally, even if delay were excused, counsel was not entitled to a significant portion of unused brief fees where no preparatory work for trial had been done and the review against advice fees was an impermissible afterthought.
9 Dec 1999

YEUNG SHU AND ANOTHER v. MESSRS ALFRED LAU & CO. (a firm)

Citation

YEUNG SHU AND ANOTHER v. MESSRS ALFRED LAU & CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV253/1999

The Court of Appeal upheld the taxing master's allowances: subpoena costs for the plaintiffs' expert were properly taxable as they serve to secure attendance and prevent adjournment, and the challenged counsel fees (Items 16–19) were separate and discrete work done before trial and therefore not subsumed by the later brief fee; the taxing master and judge did not err in exercise of their discretion and the appeal was dismissed.