遺囑認證訴訟中偽造遺囑的訟費判決？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：華懋慈善基金有限公司 訴 陳振聰 及 律政司司長 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林文瀚法官 (Hon Lam J) - 判決日期：2010年4月16日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於龔如心遺產爭議的訟費判決。原告華懋慈善基金有限公司（「華懋慈善基金」）成功挑戰第一被告陳振聰所聲稱的2006年遺囑為偽造。法院在2010年2月2日的判決中已作出初步訟費命令。各方現申請更改該訟費命令，主要爭議點包括訟費支付基礎（彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 或部分扣減）、律政司司長的訟費承擔方，以及遺產管理人的訟費處理。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於：第一被告是否應以彌償基準支付原告的訟費；律政司司長作為第二被告的訟費應由誰承擔，以及是否應由第一被告彌償遺產；原告在訴訟中提出但未獲成功的替代性爭議點（如遺囑能力 (testamentary capacity) 和遺囑意圖 (testamentary intention)）是否應導致其訟費被扣減；以及原告的訴訟行為（如未及早提出偽造指控、披露問題及更換法律團隊）是否應影響其訟費追討。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，由於第一被告明知2006年遺囑屬偽造仍試圖呈請，其行為構成欺詐法庭以謀取經濟利益，此等行為應受譴責並以彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 判處訟費。法官引用了《高等法院規則》第62號命令第5條，考慮各方行為，特別是第一被告的惡劣行為。對於原告提出的替代性爭議點，法官認為其提出這些爭議點是合理的，因為遺產龐大且2006年遺囑與龔如心長期以來的慈善意願不符，故不應因此扣減其訟費。律政司司長作為公益監護人 (parens patriae) 參與訴訟是合理且必要的，其訟費應由遺產支付，並由第一被告彌償遺產。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來確立訟費判決的原則： - In re Elgindata (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207：討論了在訟費判決中採用基於爭議點的處理方式。 - Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v Li Kai Cheong [2003] 3 HKLRD 48：確立了在侵權訴訟中作出桑德森命令 (Sanderson order) 或布洛克命令 (Bullock order) 的適用原則，即兩個訴訟因由是否相關聯。 - The Public Trustee v Annous (1992) NSW Lexis 6832：確立了在遺囑認證訴訟中，若一方明知遺囑為偽造仍試圖呈請，可判處彌償訟費。 - Nina Kung v Wang Din Shin (No 2) (2006) 9 HKCFAR 800：確認了遺囑認證訴訟的訟費責任通常涵蓋遺產管理人的費用。 - Thomas Vincent v South China Morning Post (No 2) [2004] 3 HKLRD 471：討論了成功方在某些爭議點上失敗是否應支付對方訟費的問題。 - AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507：提及了在訟費判決中採用基於爭議點的方法。 - Multiplex Constructions v Cleveland Bridge [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC)：提供了關於酌情決定訟費的八項指導原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭命令第一被告陳振聰須以彌償基準支付原告華懋慈善基金有限公司的訟費，但需扣除與遺囑能力專家證人相關的兩天訟費，該部分由遺產支付。律政司司長的訟費由遺產支付，並由第一被告彌償遺產。遺產管理人的訟費亦由第一被告彌償遺產。法庭批准委聘四名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在遺囑認證訴訟中，若一方明知遺囑為偽造仍試圖呈請，其惡劣行為將導致以彌償基準支付訟費。即使成功方在某些替代性爭議點上未能勝訴，只要其提出這些爭議點是合理的，其訟費通常不應被扣減。此外，律政司司長作為公益監護人參與涉及慈善元素的重大遺產案件，其訟費可由遺產支付，並由導致訴訟的一方彌償。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited v Chan Chun Chuen and The Secretary for Justice - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lam J - Date of Judgment: 16 April 2010 ### Factual Background This case concerns a costs judgment arising from the estate dispute of Nina Kung. The Plaintiff, Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited ("Chinachem Charitable Foundation"), successfully challenged the 2006 Will propounded by the 1st Defendant, Chan Chun Chuen, as a forgery. The court had made a costs order nisi in its judgment of 2 February 2010. The parties applied for variation of that costs order, with key disputes including the basis of costs payment (indemnity basis or partial deduction), who should bear the costs of the Secretary for Justice, and the treatment of costs for the administrator pendente lite. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were: whether the 1st Defendant should pay the Plaintiff's costs on an indemnity basis; who should bear the costs of the Secretary for Justice as the 2nd Defendant, and whether the 1st Defendant should indemnify the estate for such costs; whether the Plaintiff's costs should be reduced for alternative issues raised but not succeeded upon (such as testamentary capacity and testamentary intention); and whether the Plaintiff's conduct in the litigation (e.g., not raising forgery earlier, disclosure issues, and changing legal teams) should affect its costs recovery. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that the 1st Defendant's conduct in propounding the 2006 Will with full knowledge that it was a forgery constituted a deliberate deception of the court to obtain financial advantage, warranting condemnation and an order for costs on an indemnity basis. The judge referred to Order 62 Rule 5 of the Rules of the High Court, considering the conduct of all parties, particularly the egregious conduct of the 1st Defendant. Regarding the Plaintiff's alternative issues, the judge found it reasonable for the Plaintiff to raise them given the large estate and the inconsistency of the 2006 Will with Nina Kung's long-held charitable intentions, thus no deduction should be made. The Secretary for Justice's involvement as parens patriae was deemed reasonable and proper, with his costs to be paid from the estate and indemnified by the 1st Defendant. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish principles for costs judgments: - In re Elgindata (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207: Discussed the issue-based approach in costs orders. - Sanfield Building Contractors Ltd v Li Kai Cheong [2003] 3 HKLRD 48: Established principles for Sanderson or Bullock orders in tort actions, focusing on the connection between causes of action. - The Public Trustee v Annous (1992) NSW Lexis 6832: Established that indemnity costs are appropriate in probate actions where a party knowingly propounds a forged will. - Nina Kung v Wang Din Shin (No 2) (2006) 9 HKCFAR 800: Confirmed that costs liability in probate actions generally covers administrator pendente lite charges. - Thomas Vincent v South China Morning Post (No 2) [2004] 3 HKLRD 471: Addressed whether a successful party failing on certain issues should pay the other party's costs. - AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507: Mentioned the issue-based approach in costs judgments. - Multiplex Constructions v Cleveland Bridge [2008] EWHC 2280 (TCC): Provided eight guiding principles for exercising discretion in costs. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered the 1st Defendant, Chan Chun Chuen, to pay the Plaintiff, Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited, costs on an indemnity basis, with the exception of two days of costs related to testamentary capacity expert witnesses, which are to be paid from the estate. The Secretary for Justice's costs are to be paid from the estate, with the 1st Defendant indemnifying the estate. The costs of the administrator pendente lite are also to be indemnified by the 1st Defendant. The court certified for 4 counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that egregious conduct, such as knowingly propounding a forged will, will result in indemnity costs in probate actions. Even if a successful party fails on alternative issues, their costs should generally not be reduced if those issues were reasonably raised. Furthermore, the Secretary for Justice's involvement as parens patriae in significant estate cases with charitable elements is deemed reasonable, and his costs may be paid from the estate, indemnified by the party causing the litigation. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.