L v F

Court:Family Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FCMC5929/1998
Judgment Date:22 Dec 2000
FCMC005929/1998 XCHRX L v. F

FCMC005929/1998

FCMC 5929/1998

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 5929 OF 1998

__________

L Petitioner (Receiving Party)
AND
F Respondent (Paying Party)

__________

Coram: Queeny Au Yeung, Acting Registrar, District Court in chambers

Hearing Date: 9th December, 2000

Date of reasons for judgment: 22nd December, 2000

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

1. It is unusual to give written reasons in taxation. However, the case reveals some mal-practice of solicitors in inflating bills of costs which eventually are taxed down to below the sum of $100,000. It is necessary to state the court's position regarding award of costs in taxation hearings.

The Facts

2. This matrimonial case involved issues over custody and ancillary relief. It was, in my view, a simple matter. The assigned solicitor ("S") represented the Petitioner throughout the proceedings. The Respondent was on legal aid on the questions of custody and ancillary relief. No counsel or expert was involved on either side. There was no trial. A social investigation report was called for and the matter was eventually settled by way of consent summons. The Respondent was ordered to pay only the costs of the suit. The Petitioner's costs of the whole proceedings (except one hearing before H.H. Judge Bruno Chan) were to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

3. After the case was settled, S very properly prepared a bill on solicitor's letter head ("the Initial Bill") for the sum of $59,367.00 of which $21,234.00 was party-and-party cost. S sent it to the Director of Legal Aid ("DLA"), the Respondent's solicitors and subsequently, the Respondent directly. There was no offer for settlement. DLA instructed S to proceed to formal taxation. S then prepared the 4-column bill now before me ("the Formal Bill"). The total amount claimed on this bill was $101,980.00, 171% of the Initial Bill. Again, the Respondent made no offer on settlement. DLA told S that the question of common fund costs should be considered with party and party costs on taxation.

4. After taxation, I have allowed a total sum of $59,480.17. It was about $113.17 more than the Initial Bill. I have to decide:

(i) How much time to allow for drafting the Formal Bill.

(ii) Whether or not S should get the costs of the formal taxation.

(iii) Whether or not S should bear the costs of DLA for the formal taxation.

S was represented by a law costs draftsman ("the LCD") at the hearing. I stood the matter down for S and the officer of DLA in charge of this bill to appear personally before me to make submission on these issues.

The Cause Shown

5. At the outset, I have asked the law costs draftsman ("the LCD") to explain to me why S did not opt for fixed costs. He could not give any valid explanation. Be that as it may, it was S's right to opt for taxation instead.

6. I queried why the Initial Bill was $59,000 odd and yet the Formal Bill was for $100,000 odd. S explained that the Initial Bill was a rough estimate prepared with a view to settle with the Respondent at an early stage and was not as detailed as the Formal Bill. It was at a lower rate. It was not for taxation but just for the Respondent and DLA. When asked why couldn't he rely on...

To continue reading

Request your trial