15 Aug 2024
LCSJ 對 LSHA及另一人
- Citation
- [2024] HKCA 766
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV483/2022
The court held that the second respondent's costs statement complied with Practice Direction 14.3 and that a summary assessment does not require granular detail; the applicant's AI‑based objections lacked merit because the listed tasks were necessary and reasonably undertaken; C1/C2 entries related to the respondent's client and legitimate correspondence; the court exercised its discretion to adjust time for C1 to 30 minutes and to exclude Cao's fees for D3 and D5, resulting in a summary assessment of costs payable by the applicant of HKD 36,976.