Fiji High Court disallows DPP's dubious $44,000 cost claims for two Hong Kong prosecutors Yang and Grossman in Chaudhry's tax case

Madigan

AN application for costs by the DPP against Mahendra Pal Chaudhry was refused by the Suva High Court on Wednesday.  The claim was made as a result of an application by Chaudhry to adjourn the trial date initially fixed for 23-27 September 2013 because of unavailability of his senior counsel at the time due to illness.

Suva lawyer, Anand Singh appearing for Chaudhry, claimed that the DPP was claiming bogus costs amounting to $44,000.

The claims were for airfares ($14,200) for DPP’s Hong Kong lawyers, Elizabeth Yang and senior counsel Clive Grossman.  Also included were brief preparation costs ($30,000) as well as penalties said to be charged by a Suva hotel for bookings later cancelled.

Singh claimed none of these costs had actually been incurred – they were fake claims.

A breakdown showed the claims as follows:

1. Air tickets for Elizabeth Yang for travel Hong Kong/Sydney/Nadi/Hong Kong ($10,696)

Singh noted as follows:

a. The travel never took place so it’s not a legitimate claim.  This cost was never incurred.  A reservation was made but this was later cancelled on 16 September 2013.

b. The airfare claimed was too expensive.  The claim was for Hong Kong/Sydney/Nadi/Hong Kong when there were direct Hong Kong/Nadi flights three times a week services by Fiji Airways.  Why would she have to fly via Sydney?  The cost of business class airfare Hong Kong/Nadi is $4,700 compared to the claim $10,696 lodged by the DPP.  Economy class fare is even less at approximately $2,500.

c. The claim lodged was not supported by a receipt – the DPP had provided no evidence of this amount being paid.

2. Trial Preparation costs – $14,000 for Elizabeth Yang and $16,000 for Clive Grossman – Total $30,000, claimed in Fees for “Trial Preparation”.

Singh argued that claim had no legal basis for costs.  Trial preparation costs should be paid by the DPP who had contracted the services of Ms. Yang and  Grossman.  And in any case, no preparation work was done in Fiji.

3. Hotel Surcharge $820 – claimed in penalties charged by Holiday Inn for late cancellation of booking.

Singh said this was another questionable claim.  The hotel had levied no penalty or surcharge for cancellation.  In any case, there is no penalty charged if the cancellation is made 24 hours prior to arrival. The bookings were for 21-28 September 2013. The reservations were cancelled on 17 September 2013 – no costs were therefore incurred by way of penalties.

4. Travel costs HK$15,700 ($F3,500) – for Clive Grossman listed as “Difference in cost of tickets due to rerouting” travel.

The re-routing was from Honolulu, Hawaii. Singh asked why Grossman would need to travel to Honolulu to get to Fiji when there were three direct flights to Nadi from Hong Kong. 

Was Grossman going to Honolulu on some other business but claiming costs from the DPP? 

No evidence of payment of this amount was produced by DPP.

Grossman had allegedly asked that payments due to him (F$20,000) be made in Sterling and deposited in his personal bank account in the Channel Islands, which is a tax haven.

---

Grossman and Yang: Travel expenses challenged

Why duo didn't take direct flight from Hong Kong on Fiji Airways?

Anand Singh with Chaudhry

Holiday Inn: The hotel had levied no penalty or surcharge for cancellation - so $820 "bogus claim"

Tax haven! Grossman allegedly wanted fees in sterling to be deposited in Channel Island bank account

Singh said it was most unusual and irregular for charges billed in Fiji and Hong Kong dollars to be converted to Sterling and paid in a country other than Hong Kong where Grossman’s practice was located.

Justice Paul Madigan disallowed the costs claimed saying that a proper case had not been made by the DPP.