Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Expert fees

  • 28 Nov 2024

    WONG CHI WING v. WONG SIU WA

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 2035
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ493/2023

    Plaintiff's expert evidence and documentary material established the source and effect of the water seepage; the claimed items were reasonable, non-overlapping and supported by authority, so the Master allowed reinstatement costs (HK$332,980), consequential rental loss (HK$458,260) and expert investigation fees (HK$15,000), ordered costs to follow the event summarily assessed at HK$115,000, and awarded interest from the date of the writ to judgment and judgment rate thereafter; hearing proceeded in defendant's absence under O.35 r.1 after service.

  • 6 Oct 2017

    SHI JIAN, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF YANG FEND, DECEASED v. DR LAM MAN HO

    Citation
    SHI JIAN, THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF YANG FEND, DECEASED v. DR LAM MAN HO
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI128/2013

    The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to pay further security for costs into court: HK$600,000 to cover the 1st, 2nd and 5th defendants and HK$300,000 to cover the 4th defendant, up to determination of the split trial, having adjusted and assessed hourly rates and allowed or disallowed specific items on the basis of complexity, necessity of counsel/expert involvement and reasonableness of entries.

  • 2 Dec 2016

    WONG HON WAI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    WONG HON WAI v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI664/2009

    Weighing complexity, extensive reliance on experienced counsel and proportionality to the amount settled, the taxing master reasonably fixed the solicitor's hourly rate at HK$4,000, disallowed travel to the plaintiff's home and various items as excessive or unnecessary, refused transfer of disallowed party-and-party costs to the common fund, upheld the bulk of original taxation decisions and allowed only a HK$120 downward revision to expert item 400; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the review to the defendant.

  • 24 Apr 2013

    LEHMAN & CO. MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LEHMAN & CO. MANAGEMENT LTD v. EFFISCIENT LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV272/2011

    The appeal was allowed only to a limited extent; the appellant is not the overall successful party for full costs. The Court exercised its discretion to apportion costs to reflect discrete successes and failures: Effiscient must pay one‑third of Lehman Management's costs of the appeal; the judge's equal apportionment of the court expert's fees is varied so Effiscient bears 30% and Lehman Management 70% of the expert's fees; costs of the remedies trial are reallocated so Lehman Management pays two‑thirds of its costs to Effiscient; the judge's costs order on the liability trial is undisturbed;…

  • 27 Nov 2009

    CHAN KONG YI v. DR. BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHAN KONG YI v. DR. BALDEV SINGH AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI692/2005

    The Master dismissed the taxation review because expert fees are constrained by legal aid taxation and party-and-party principles; there was insufficient evidence of actual loss of income or special overheads to justify higher hourly rates beyond $6,000 which had been allowed, the contemporaneous time (or accepted actual time) and the brief nature of reports supported the time allowed, and certain claimed items (eg early trial preparation, perusal of short letters) were properly taxed off.

  • 12 Jul 2000

    CHOY BING WING t/a BING CHOY & ASSOCIATES v. THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.

    Citation
    CHOY BING WING t/a BING CHOY & ASSOCIATES v. THE HONGKONG & SHANGHAI HOTELS, LTD.
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV151/1998

    The Master affirmed the original taxation because the taxed hourly rate for the litigant in person was supported by the plaintiff's prior billing history adjusted by an accepted 8% annual inflation rate to an average of HK$1,295; speculative loss of business was too remote and not recoverable; the experts rate of HK$2,000 was reasonable given his engineering experience and additional barrister status, and the receiving party failed to discharge the burden of proof for higher rates.

  • 19 Jul 1993

    UBC (Construction) Limited v. Sung Foo Kee Limited

    Citation
    UBC (Construction) Limited v. Sung Foo Kee Limited
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT11/1991

    The court found SFK's late amendment and denial of the clear meaning of UBC daywork certificates was oppressive and an affront to the court, and that these specific items of expense were caused unnecessarily by SFK; therefore those specified items are to be taxed on an indemnity basis while all other costs (pre-trial and trial generally) will be taxed on the usual party-and-party basis; counterclaim costs are not ordered against SFK and post-judgment hearings costs are borne by SFK on the usual basis.

  • 19 May 1969

    STATES STEAMSHIP CO v. COMPANIA NAVIERA TONGJAE SA

    Citation
    STATES STEAMSHIP CO v. COMPANIA NAVIERA TONGJAE SA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAJ8/1966

    The court awarded interest at 8% per annum from 20 October 1964 to 19 April 1969 and thereafter at 8% until payment, following local precedent and the full indemnity principle; the claimed $12,000 for Captain King was not allowed as presented and the matter was referred to the taxing master for assessment, with the draft order otherwise approved.