LI CHUNG YAN HILDA v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

CACV 84/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 84 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCB 8025/2013)

_______________

BETWEEN
LI CHUNG YAN HILDA (李頌欣) Appellant

and

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent

_______________

AND

CACV 86/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 86 OF 2015

(ON APPEAL FROM HCB 8023/2013)

_______________

BETWEEN
MANN KEVIN PATRICK Appellant

and

THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED Respondent

_______________

(HEARD TOGETHER)

Before : Cheung JA and Poon JA in Court

Dates of Written Submissions on Costs : 5 and 23 October and 2 November 2015
Date of Decision on Costs : 12 November 2015

______________________________

DECISION ON COSTS

______________________________

Hon Poon JA (giving the Decision on Costs of the Court) :

1. This is the summary assessment of the costs claimed by the respondent for its applications for security for costs.

2. We have considered the respondent’s bill of costs dated 5 October 2015 and the parties’ submissions filed pursuant to our directions.

3. We accept that the costs claimed by the respondent are covered by the indemnity costs provision in the Guarantee dated 10 March2010. It means that all costs are to be allowed except those unreasonably incurred or of unreasonable amount, the respondent asthe receiving party being giving the benefit of any doubt : see Hong Kong Civil Procedure, 2016 Edition, Vol 1, paragraph 62/App/11at p 1233. In assessing the respondent’s costs, we take into account the two fee earners’ hourly rate, their experience andexpertise and the issues involved in the applications.

4. We think that the hourly rates adopted by the two handling solicitors are reasonable and will allow their rates in full.

5. Part B of the bill of costs concerns mechanical work. The rates are all set by the rules or charged by the court. They are allowedin full.

6. On Part C, we think the time claimed by RNHC (12.5 hours) is unreasonably excessive. It is reduced to 8 hours. The time chargedby NSML (1 hour) is reasonable and is allowed in full.

7. The sub-total allowed under Part C is $28,768.00 (RNHC) + $4,794.00 (NSML) = $33,562.00.

8. On Part D, we also consider the time charged by RNHC (13.5 hours) to be unreasonably excessive. It is reduced to 8.5 hours.

9. The time charged by NSML (1 hour) is reasonable and is allowed in full.

10. The sub-total allowed for the two solicitors is $30,566.00 (RNHC) + $8,149.80 (NSML) = $38,715.80.

11. Counsel fees ($15,000.00) are reasonable and are allowed in full.

12. So the total fees that we allow is $5,489.90 (Part B) + $33,562.00 (Part C) + $38,715.80 + $15,000.00 (Part D) = $92,767.70.

13. We will round it up to $92,770.00 and order the applicants to pay that sum to the respondent as costs of the two applications forsecurity for costs.

(Peter Cheung) (Jeremy Poon)
Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal

Mayer Brown JSM, for the respondent

The appellant (in CACV 84/2015) : Li, Chung Yan Hilda (李頌欣), in person

The appellant (in CACV 86/2015) : Mann, Kevin Patrick, in person