14 May 2024
The taxing Master's decision was within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement, not shown to be affected by any mistake of law or palpable misapprehension of fact (save two minor factual points which did not vitiate the Master's determinations), and therefore the judge must not interfere; the defendant's summons for review of taxation is dismissed and costs follow the event.
25 Aug 2023
The Master upheld the taxation allowances made at the taxation hearing: hourly rates for the identified fee-earners and rates for trainee/para-legal staff were reasonable for their experience and periods claimed; items challenged were, item-by-item, either properly allowed or appropriately reduced after review; briefs and fee notes satisfied the Order 62 requirement for counsel fees; the solicitor's certificate on the bill was prima facie evidence of client liability and Mr Tang produced no evidence to rebut it; the review was an abuse of process when used to re-litigate the underlying decisi…
27 Jul 2018
The master refused the late addition of alternative grounds, upheld the original taxation approach that allowed items directly occasioned by the defendant's summons (on an indemnity basis) and taxed off or reduced items appropriately; accordingly the review was dismissed and the paying party was ordered to pay the receiving party's costs of the review assessed at HKD 12,100.
13 Oct 2016
The court exercised its Order 62 rule 35 powers to uphold the taxing master's substantive rulings: the hourly rate of $2,600 for the handling solicitor CW is reasonable; the apportionment and allowance of preparatory works, Lands Tribunal attendance, correspondence and letters after judgment stand; taxation costs are not disallowed merely because a bill was contested; however waiting time of 1 hour 40 minutes for the solicitor on 30 March 2016 must be disallowed under paragraph 62/App/21(4); certificate for counsel for the taxation review is disallowed because counsel did not assist sufficien…
29 Jul 2016
The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and made it absolute because the defendants demonstrated they intended to substantially dispute both the necessity and the quantum of the costs claimed from a four‑day taxation review with total claimed costs of about HK$200,000; those substantive disputes meant summary assessment was inappropriate and the court exercised its discretion to require full taxation.
29 Jan 2016
The master refused the defendants' review because the statutory provisions invoked were inapplicable to party v party taxation, there was no evidential basis to disturb the original taxation rulings (including allegations of duplication, overcharging or breach of certification), the seniority and rates of counsel and solicitors were proper and necessary given complexity, and most grounds had already been fully argued at taxation; accordingly the prior taxation rulings were maintained and the blanket review was refused.
27 Nov 2009
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 Aug 2009
Applying the White Book principles the Master found parts of the counsel fees excessive and reduced them: about half of the time charged for drafting defences was disallowed (allowing HKD 4,583 per defence), PTR attendance fees were reduced (allowing HKD 7,500 for three PTR attendances, equivalent to HKD 577 per case), all junior counsel fees were disallowed and leading counsel's brief and refresher fees were allowed. The review application was dismissed and costs were ordered to follow the event with a specific costs order nisi awarded to the receiving party.
29 Apr 2006
Apply the test whether an item would have been incurred irrespective of the adjournment; counsel fees ordinarily fail that test, but where the costs order separately certifies two counsel those fees can be treated as a discrete item and allowed; on review the allowed amounts are HK$164,000 for senior counsel and HK$50,000 for junior counsel.
7 Dec 2004
Master Levy was wrong to make Quan personally liable for wasted costs of the adjournment because there was substantial compliance, no contumelious default and no necessity for the adjournment; Master De Souza's refusal to review the taxation was also wrong because the 2nd allocatur was improperly issued; leave to appeal out of time was granted on the strength of the merits and balancing of prejudice.