Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disbursements

Legal area

Court

11 Aug 2022

TONG WAI YEE WINNIE v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1231/2021

Applying Order 62 r 28A(3) and Cheuk Shu Yin, the court rejected the applicant's unsupported claim of 2,962 hours as implausible, assessed a reasonable solicitor-equivalent time at 205 hours at $200 per hour ($41,000), allowed disbursements for filing/photocopying at $4,000, allowed 6 hours of consultation time with solicitors ($1,200) but disallowed the HKCAAVQ fee as non-legal cost, and ordered total assessed costs of $46,200 payable forthwith by the Secretary/EDB to the Applicant.
27 Jun 2022

CHAN OI KWAN, one of the beneficiaries of the Estate of CHAN YUEN, deceased v. CHAN FU WING,the administrator of the Estate of CHAN YUEN, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2211/2019

The court adopted a global approach to assessment, accepted some of the Plaintiff's objections but not to the extent sought, disallowed travelling fees, allowed counsel's fees in full (HK$117,000), and adjusted the solicitor's claimed items to totals of B HK$5,000; C HK$300,000; D1+D2 HK$300,000; D3 HK$10,000; D4 HK$68,000, producing an assessed total of HK$800,000 payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.
11 Sept 2020

BRAVE VENTURE LTD v. XINHUA NEWS MEDIA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1901/2017

The Master dismissed the Company's reviews and upheld the taxation rulings: maintained the junior counsel hourly rate at HK$5,500 with appropriate item deductions, allowed the senior counsel brief fee of HK$300,000 as within a reasonable range for his seniority, upheld the necessity and quantum of the PRC investigation disbursements and the Cayman law opinion (subject to a modest adjustment), and confirmed that costs relating to ex parte applications with no costs order are not recoverable; accordingly the Company's challenges to the taxation were rejected and the Company was ordered to pay t…
3 Apr 2020

KWOK HONG YEE JESSE t/as JESSE H.Y. KWOK & CO. v. TSO HON LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 176
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5354/2018

The one‑bill principle is not absolute; the court may permit a further bill or amendment where justice requires (eg payment of previously unpaid disbursements). Prior master rulings were procedural or fact‑dependent and did not create estoppel given the subsequent payment of counsel's fees and change of circumstances. The plaintiff's conduct did not constitute abuse of process. Accordingly the striking out application failed and the default judgment stands; appeal dismissed.
13 Sept 2018

WONG YAT PING v. CARITAS – HONG KONG

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1090
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2123/2015

Order 22 r26(1) requires treating the sanctioned payment as inclusive of interest to 2 December 2015; applying the judgment interest rate to that date produced a total (HK$88,619.76) below the sanctioned payment (HK$96,225.90), so the applicant did not obtain a better judgment; accordingly costs from 3 December 2015 are awarded against the applicant on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, interest on disbursements awarded at 4.5% per annum from 3 December 2015, the DLA is not liable for costs after 20 April 2018, interest on the award stops at 2 December 2015, and the sanctioned p…
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.
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.
7 Dec 2015

BEYONICS TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOH CHAN PENG AND OTHERS

Citation

BEYONICS TECHNOLOGY LTD AND ANOTHER v. GOH CHAN PENG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV244/2014

The court allowed the defendants' application in part and summarily assessed the defendants' recoverable costs at HK$381,228, reducing the claimed hourly rates to HK$4,200 (JK), HK$3,800 (PS), HK$2,500 (BN) and HK$1,200 (legal executive), and reducing particular time entries where excessive or duplicative while allowing counsel fees and disbursements where justified under the hypothetical counsel test; the assessment included costs of the leave application and, by consent, the stay application.
8 Oct 2014

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN

Citation

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP961/2013

Because the defendant did not establish any pecuniary loss, the rate was limited to HK$200 per hour under RHC O.62 r.28A(3); having regard to the defendant's status as a litigant in person and the volume of documents, the court allowed 45 hours (20 hours for submissions and 25 hours for perusal) at HK$200 per hour plus HK$110 disbursements, assessing the defendant's costs of the application at HK$9,110; costs of the assessment ordered nisi (no order).
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.