Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Party-and-party taxation

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2015

YUNG TAI YIN v. CHAN YUEN TUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUNG TAI YIN v. CHAN YUEN TUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1225/2014

Applying the two-stage summary assessment approach and adopting a broad-brush methodology, the court found the claimed costs disproportionate on a party-and-party basis, scrutinised each item for necessity and reasonableness, allowed reductions and disallowances on multiple items and assessed total recoverable costs at $100,950, ordering the plaintiff to pay that sum to the 2nd defendant.
13 Oct 2005

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2347/2004

The appeal was without proper basis and the Master had legitimately exercised discretion; there was no basis to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event. Therefore the plaintiff must pay the costs of the appeal and the costs of the hearing, to be taxed on a party-and-party basis and paid forthwith.
30 Mar 2004

CITIBANK (WEST), FSB v. EMERALD WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CITIBANK (WEST), FSB v. EMERALD WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA97/2004

Apply party‑and‑party taxation standards to reduce excessive and duplicative time and to adjust hourly rates to customary levels: disallow the second solicitor’s unnecessary time, reduce GL’s hours for each stage, set the litigation clerk rate at HKD 1,000 and assess bill preparation by reference to a law costs draftsman at HKD 1,600; award gross sum costs to plaintiff in the reduced amount HKD 126,677.
12 Feb 2003

CHAN KWONG HON v. CHAN KAM WAH KENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN KWONG HON v. CHAN KAM WAH KENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI242/2002

Plaintiff was entitled to costs but the court must reduce items that were unreasonable, duplicative or unnecessary; having found the action straightforward with overlap in solicitor work and excessive disbursements, the court allowed a reduced profit costs sum and disbursements and fixed gross sum costs at HKD 164,437 payable within 21 days.
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.
25 Jul 1989

CAL-TRADE PRIVATE LTD v. MINDO COMMODITY TRADING CO LTD

Citation

CAL-TRADE PRIVATE LTD v. MINDO COMMODITY TRADING CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/1989

The judge below misapplied his discretion by relying on an inflated skeleton bill as a realistic guide; the proper approach is to estimate what a hypothetical competent solicitor and counsel would reasonably incur on a party-and-party basis to discovery, discount inflated items and not certify two counsel absent necessity. Applying that approach the Court of Appeal reduced the security to $315,000, granted leave to appeal out of time against the certificate for two counsel and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal (order nisi), leaving other costs orders below undis…

Hong Kong Case Law

YUNG TAI YIN v. CHAN YUEN TUNG AND ANOTHER

ASIA PACIFIC LASIK CENTRE LTD v. QUALITY HEALTHCARE MEDICAL SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

CITIBANK (WEST), FSB v. EMERALD WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC LTD AND ANOTHER

CHAN KWONG HON v. CHAN KAM WAH KENT AND ANOTHER

UBC (Construction) Limited v. Sung Foo Kee Limited

CAL-TRADE PRIVATE LTD v. MINDO COMMODITY TRADING CO LTD