HCA3030/2015

HCA3030/2015

A A HCA 3030/2015 B B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE C HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION C COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE D D ACTION NO 3030 OF 2015 E E BETWEEN F F HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (a firm) Plaintiff G G and H H st CHRIS AU 1 Defendant I RETRIBUTION LIMITED 2nd Defendant I J J K Before: Deputy High Court Judge Lee in Chambers K Date of Hearing: 21 February 2017 L L Date of Plaintiff’s Statement of Costs for Summary Assessment: 20 March 2017 M M Date of 1st Defendant’s List of Objection to Plaintiff’s Statement of Costs for Summary Assessment: 27 March 2017 N N Date of Decision on Costs: 5 April 2017 O O P DECI SI ON ON SUMM ARY P ASSESSMENT OF COSTS Q Q Introduction R R 1. In my judgment handed down on 3 March 2017, I ordered that S S the worldwide Mareva injunction against D1 be varied and continued until T further order and I also made a disclosure order auxiliary to and in aid of T the Mareva injunction. There was an order nisi that P has the costs of the U U V V  ‒ 2 ‒ A A application and the hearing. Subsequently, the parties agree and ask that B B costs be dealt with by way of summary assessment. P has since filed their C C Statement of Costs and D1 has filed their objections. I have considered D those and the following is my assessment on a summary basis. D E The Proceedings E F 2. My costs order covers the following: F G (i) P’s application by summons dated 21 November 2016; G H (ii) the ex parte hearing before Lam J on 18 November 2016; H (iii) the inter partes hearing before DHCJ Fung, SC on I I 25 November 2016; and J (iv) the substantive inter partes hearing before me on 21 February J 2017. K K L A: Fee Earners’ Rates L M 3. P claims fees for 5 fee earners as follows: M Fee Earner Year of Admission Hourly Rate N Partner (GHT) 1998 (HK) $4,000 N Senior Associate (ML) 2013 (HK), 2008(NSW) $3,500 O Associate (RH) 2012 (HK) $3,000 O Registered Foreign Lawyer (HE) (NSW 2016) $2,000 Litigation Clerk (P) -- $1,000 P P Q 4. I note that there is no objection to the rate of GHT. Q R R 5. As regards ML and RH, in view of their respective year of S admission in Hong Kong and the objection taken, I would allow an hourly S rate of $2,500 for ML and $2,200 for RH respectively. T T U U V V  ‒ 3 ‒ A A 6. As regards HE, I do not agree that his involvement is B B unreasonable. Besides, I allow him $2,000 per hour. C C 7. However, I take the point that it is exceptional for four D D solicitors to be involved in the same application like the present one. E Therefore, I would take that into account when I assess the total number of E hours claimed by the fee earners under each of the following heads and F F make adjustments accordingly. G G B: Manual Work H H 8. There is no objection to photocopying charges ($2,000). I I However, objections were made to the total number of attendances by the J litigation clerk for filing ($5,000) and serving ($2,000). J K K 9. Having considered the file, I allow a total of $5,000 under this L head. L M M C: Communication including conferences, phone calls and letters N N 10. The total amount claimed under this head is $20,500. There O is no objection in relation to the time spent by GHT, ML and RH. O However, adjustments have to be made regarding the hourly rates of ML P P and RH respectively. I note the objection in relation to the time spent by Q HE (0.5 hours with D’s solicitors and 1.5 hours with banks). Q R R 11. Taking into account the total time spent by the fee earners, S I make a slight adjustment and allow a round figure of $18,000 under this S head. T T U U V V  ‒ 4 ‒ A A D: Professional work - ex parte hearing before Lam J B B 12. P claimed a total of $150,250 for the professional work of C C GHT, RH, HE and P. As I said, adjustments have to be made regarding D the hourly rate of RH. The bulk of the preparation work was undertaken D by HE. However, the latter alone claimed a total of 37 hours and that E E seems excessive to me for an application of the present nature and level of F complexity. F G G 13. Having considered the matter, I allow a total of $110,000 H under this head. H I I E: Professional work – inter partes hearing before DHCJ Fung, SC J J 14. P claimed a total of $67,500 for the professional work of GHT, K RH & HE. As I said, there should be a downward adjustment for the K hourly rate of RH. L L M 15. I note that a further affidavit and written submissions were M filed for that hearing. I allow a total of $45,000 under this head. N N O F: Professional work – inter partes hearing before me O P 16. P claimed a total of $151,375 for the professional work of P GHT, ML and P. As aforesaid, the hourly rate for ML has to be adjusted Q Q downward. Although it was a substantive hearing with further affidavit R evidence, written submissions and hearing bundles filed, the total number R of hours claimed, in particular those by ML alone (33.25 hours) seems S S excessive to me. Also, some of the preparation should have been covered T by the work done before. T U U V V  ‒ 5 ‒ A A 17. Having considered the case and the documents filed, I allow B B $100,000 under this head. C C G: Counsel’s fees D D 18. This was for the half day hearing before me. Counsel E E charged a total of $95,000 all inclusive. That is on the high side for an F application of this nature and given the ground work that had been done by F the fee earners. G G H 19. I allow $75,000 under this head. H I I Conclusion J J 20. Therefore, by way of summary assessment, the costs to P is K assessed as follows: K L B $5,000 L C $18,000 M D $110,000 M E $45,000 N F $100,000 N G $75,000 Total: $353,000 O O P P Q Q (Alex Lee) R Deputy High Court Judge R S Ms Elizabeth Cheung instructed by Herbert Smith Freehills, for the S plaintiff T T Ms Astina Au instructed by Boase, Cohen & Collins, for the 1st defendant U U V V