非法干擾業務的「非法手段」定義？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD 及其他人 訴 BYD COMPANY LIMITED 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：陳健強暫委法官 (Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan) - 判決日期：2010年8月24日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於原告（反訴被告）於2007年10月5日提出的訴訟，聲稱被告（反訴原告）自2005年5月起誘使並招募其高級員工，洩露原告的商業機密和機密資訊，包括營運手冊、生產流程圖、供應商及客戶記錄等。原告指控被告違反內地反不正當競爭法，並尋求損害賠償及利潤分成。被告則於2009年提出反訴，指控原告自2006年起以非法手段干擾其業務，包括製造虛假證據、非法拘禁前員工、栽贓文件、恐嚇、行賄等，意圖損害被告的聲譽和業務。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於反訴原告（被告）所提出的反訴中，關於反訴被告（原告）非法干擾業務的指控，是否構成可訴訟的訴訟因由。具體而言，爭議點包括：反訴中指控的非法行為（如非法拘禁、栽贓文件、恐嚇、行賄）是否構成「非法手段 (unlawful means)」以支持非法干擾侵權行為；以及這些指控是否足夠具體，足以在訴訟中成立，或是否應因其「可恥、瑣屑、無理取鬧及令人尷尬」而被剔除。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析時指出，反訴原告的指控應被視為一個整體行為過程 (course of conduct)，而非孤立的個別指控。儘管非法干擾侵權行為的「非法手段」定義在法律上仍在發展中，且OBG Ltd一案中多數意見要求第三方可訴訟的錯誤行為，但法官認為，考慮到Lord Nicholls在該案中的少數意見以及Lord Hope在其他案件中的保留意見，現階段剔除反訴為時過早。法官強調，此類複雜的法律問題應由審訊法官在聽取所有證據後決定。此外，反訴原告已提出部分前員工可針對反訴被告提出恐嚇及惡意檢控的訴訟，這也支持了反訴的合理性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例來討論「非法手段」的定義： - OBG Ltd & Anor v Allan & Ors [2008] 1 AC 1：法官詳細審視了Lord Hoffman的多數意見，該意見認為非法手段必須是第三方可訴訟的錯誤行為。同時，法官也考慮了Lord Nicholls的少數意見，該意見主張非法手段應涵蓋所有不被允許的行為，包括刑事行為。 - Revenue and Customers Commissioners v Total Network SL [2008] 1 AC 1174：Lord Hope在此案中對OBG Ltd案中Lord Hoffman關於非法手段的觀點表達了保留意見。 - Cheung Chui Sou Ying v the Personal Representatives of Cheung Yuk Luen alias Wilson Cheung deceased and Ors [1981] HKLR 585：引用了Barker J關於剔除訴訟原則的陳述，即只有在明顯和清楚的案件中才應行使剔除權。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了原告（反訴被告）提出的剔除反訴部分內容的申請。這意味著反訴中關於非法拘禁、栽贓文件、恐嚇、行賄等指控將保留，並在正式審訊中進行審理。法官亦命令原告（反訴被告）支付被告（反訴原告）本次申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在法律發展中的領域，法院在剔除訴訟申請時應持謹慎態度，尤其當法律原則存在爭議時。法官傾向於讓複雜的法律問題在全面審訊後，由審訊法官根據所有證據作出裁決。這對涉及新興或發展中侵權行為（如非法干擾）的案件具有重要啟示，表明法院可能更願意讓此類案件進入審訊階段，以促進法律的進一步發展和澄清。 --- ### 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: SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD and Others v BYD COMPANY LIMITED and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan - Date of Judgment: 24 August 2010 ### Factual Background This case originated from an action filed on 5 October 2007 by the plaintiffs (defendants by counterclaim), alleging that the defendants (plaintiffs by counterclaim) had, since May 2005, enticed and recruited their senior staff to disclose the plaintiffs' trade secrets and confidential information, including operation manuals, production flow charts, supplier and customer records. The plaintiffs accused the defendants of breaching Mainland unfair competition law and sought damages and an account of profits. The defendants, in turn, filed a counterclaim in 2009, alleging that the plaintiffs had, since 2006, unlawfully interfered with their business by unlawful means, including fabricating false evidence, unlawfully detaining former employees, planting documents, intimidation, and bribery, with the intent to damage the defendants' reputation and business. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case is whether the allegations made by the plaintiffs by counterclaim (defendants in the original action) in their counterclaim, concerning unlawful interference with business by the defendants by counterclaim (plaintiffs in the original action), constitute a reasonable cause of action. Specifically, the dispute revolves around whether the alleged unlawful acts (such as unlawful detention, planting of documents, intimidation, and bribery) qualify as "unlawful means" to support the tort of unlawful interference, and whether these allegations are sufficiently particularized to stand in litigation or should be struck out as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and embarrassing. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge's analysis highlighted that the allegations in the counterclaim should be viewed as a "course of conduct" rather than isolated individual claims. While the definition of "unlawful means" in the tort of unlawful interference is still developing, and the majority in OBG Ltd required an actionable wrong by a third party, the judge noted Lord Nicholls' dissenting opinion in that case and Lord Hope's reservations in other cases. Therefore, it was deemed premature to strike out the counterclaim at this stage. The judge emphasized that complex legal issues should be decided by a trial judge after hearing all evidence. Furthermore, the defendants by counterclaim had argued that some former employees could bring claims of intimidation and malicious prosecution against the plaintiffs by counterclaim, which also supported the reasonableness of the counterclaim. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case primarily cited the following precedents concerning the definition of "unlawful means": - OBG Ltd & Anor v Allan & Ors [2008] 1 AC 1: The judge examined Lord Hoffman's majority view, which required unlawful means to be an actionable wrong by a third party, and Lord Nicholls' minority view, which argued that unlawful means should encompass all impermissible acts, including criminal conduct. - Revenue and Customers Commissioners v Total Network SL [2008] 1 AC 1174: Lord Hope expressed reservations about Lord Hoffman's view on unlawful means in OBG Ltd. - Cheung Chui Sou Ying v the Personal Representatives of Cheung Yuk Luen alias Wilson Cheung deceased and Ors [1981] HKLR 585: Cited Barker J's statement on the principles for striking out, emphasizing that this power should only be exercised in plain and obvious cases. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the application by the plaintiffs (defendants by counterclaim) to strike out parts of the counterclaim. This means that the allegations in the counterclaim regarding unlawful detention, planting of documents, intimidation, and bribery will remain and proceed to full trial. The judge also ordered the plaintiffs (defendants by counterclaim) to pay the defendants' (plaintiffs by counterclaim) costs for this application. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to striking out applications in areas of developing law, especially when legal principles are contentious. The judge's inclination to allow complex legal questions to proceed to full trial, where all evidence can be heard, is significant. This has important implications for cases involving nascent or evolving torts, suggesting that courts may be more willing to let such claims reach the trial stage to facilitate further legal development and clarification. --- ### 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.