16 Dec 2022
Where a defendant files a detailed costs statement and the plaintiff fails to specifically challenge the items or amounts, the court will assess the schedule and, if the items are reasonable, order payment of the claimed amount; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to pay HK$14,861 to the first defendant.
23 Feb 2022
The judge found the hours claimed and the proposed counsel's fee excessive, applied a broad-brush summary assessment and fixed recoverable costs at HK$300,000 for the 1st Defendant and HK$200,000 for the 2nd Defendant, and reduced the appropriate counsel's fee to HK$140,000 to be shared by the defendants; the plaintiff must bear the costs of and occasioned by the summons with a certificate for one counsel.
3 Sept 2018
The court found the solicitors' costs excessive for the attendances and document preparation claimed and summarily allowed $15,000 for solicitors and $15,000 for counsel's brief, reducing the plaintiff's claimed $51,191 to $30,000.
5 Oct 2016
The court found specified solicitors' profit cost items grossly excessive given the nature and complexity of the work and exercised its summary assessment power to tax those items down to specific reduced amounts while allowing the counsel's fee of HK$30,000 in full, resulting in total costs allowed of HK$56,705.
25 Jun 2013
Where a solicitor's own client bill for non-contentious complex corporate work is challenged, the taxing master must allow costs unless shown to be unreasonable in amount or unreasonably incurred; applying a flexible approach to historical scale rates and weighing factors in First Schedule paragraph 1(2), the Master found the claimed rates and time were justified by the transaction's complexity, cross-border and listing implications and specialized input, and dismissed the defendant's review in its entirety while maintaining the previously taxed rates (with a limited taxation down of one part…
21 Dec 2012
Master accepted jurisdiction to assess reasonableness without full taxation but was bound by trial judge's findings (including hourly rate HK$4,000). He examined challenged items, made specific deductions totaling HK$167,733 from the Plaintiff's post-concession bill of HK$673,221 and assessed recoverable damages at HK$505,488 as a reasonable sum in all the circumstances.
15 Aug 2003
The Tribunal held that professional costs under s.10(2)(e)(ii) are to be determined on a time basis because the statutory 'reasonableness' test requires evidence of time expended and the professionals' experience, information not supplied by a one‑fee scale; accordingly the time basis permits the Tribunal to assess reasonableness and avoid potential injustice from mechanical application of a single scale.
10 Jul 2000
The indemnity cost provisions in the credit card agreements are unconscionable within the meaning and purpose of the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance given the unequal bargaining position, lack of notice or understanding by consumers, and the clauses' capacity to permit uncapped and unreasonable charges; therefore the provisions are unenforceable and plaintiffs are limited to the fixed costs under Order 62; the master's order granting fixed costs is upheld and the appeals are dismissed.
13 Feb 1991
On a taxation on the common fund basis the master must allow costs that are reasonably incurred; given the exceptional scale, complexity and volume of documents in this litigation the defendants established that additional office rental and the retention of an in‑house technical consultant were reasonably and necessarily incurred for the defence; accordingly those items are allowable (subject to specific percentage reductions on certain office items), and in‑house staff costs may be recoverable where directly and reasonably attributable to litigation work.