訟費命令更改的理據？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LIMITED v CHAN CHUN CHUEN (陳振聰) AND THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Katina Levy - 判決日期：2011年8月17日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於華懋慈善基金有限公司（原告）與陳振聰（第一被告）之間的一宗遺產訴訟。在2011年6月30日的判決中，法庭駁回了第一被告要求披露文件的申請，該申請旨在質疑原告的訟費單涉嫌助訟及違反彌償原則 (indemnity principle)。法庭當時作出了傾向原告的臨時訟費命令 (costs order nisi)。第一被告隨後於2011年7月13日提出傳票，申請更改該臨時訟費命令，要求將原告的訟費減少50%或法庭認為合適的比例。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於第一被告是否有充分理由要求法庭更改先前作出的臨時訟費命令，即將原告的訟費減少。第一被告主張，由於原告在訟費單中存在錯誤，並需透過其訟費繪製師提交澄清誓章 (clarification affirmation) 才確認正確的訟費金額，因此應減少原告可獲判的訟費。 ### 判決理由 法庭根據《高等法院規則》第62號命令第5條及第3(2)條的訟費原則，並引用了 In re Elgindata Ltd (No.2) [1992] 1 LWR 1207 一案的判例，分析了在何種情況下可剝奪勝訴方部分訟費。法庭認為，只有當勝訴方提出其敗訴的爭議，且這些爭議顯著增加了訴訟的長度或訟費時，才可剝奪其訟費。本案中，原告提交澄清誓章並未顯著延長聆訊或增加訟費，因此不符合剝奪訟費的條件。法庭亦指出，原告實際支付的訟費已超過其申索的金額。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了 In re Elgindata Ltd (No.2) [1992] 1 LWR 1207 一案，該案確立了在何種情況下法庭可剝奪勝訴方部分訟費的原則，即當勝訴方提出其敗訴的爭議，且這些爭議顯著增加了訴訟的長度或訟費時。此原則亦在 La Chemise Lacoste SA v Crocodile Garments Ltd. [2000] 4 HKC 317 一案中被應用。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了第一被告要求更改訟費的傳票申請。原告的臨時訟費命令成為絕對命令 (absolute order)，但與2011年6月1日余兆明（Nelson Yu Shiu Ming）提交的澄清誓章相關的所有訟費均不予准許。第一被告須支付原告就本次傳票申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法庭在處理訟費申請時的原則，即訟費通常歸於勝訴方 (costs follow the event)，除非有特殊情況。即使勝訴方在訟費申報上存在錯誤，若這些錯誤未導致訴訟時間或成本顯著增加，法庭仍可能維持原判，但會將因自身錯誤而產生的相關訟費排除在外。 --- ### 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 (陳振聰) AND THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Katina Levy - Date of Judgment: 17 August 2011 ### Factual Background This case arose from a probate action between Chinachem Charitable Foundation Limited (Plaintiff) and Chan Chun Chuen (1st Defendant). In a judgment dated 30 June 2011, the court dismissed the 1st Defendant's application for discovery of documents, which sought to challenge the Plaintiff's bill of costs on grounds of alleged champerty and breach of the indemnity principle. A costs order nisi was made in favour of the Plaintiff. The 1st Defendant subsequently applied by summons on 13 July 2011 to vary this nisi costs order, requesting a 50% reduction of the Plaintiff's costs or such percentage reduction as the Court deemed fit. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the 1st Defendant had sufficient grounds to persuade the court to vary the previously made nisi costs order by reducing the Plaintiff's costs. The 1st Defendant argued that the Plaintiff's costs should be reduced because the Plaintiff's bill of costs contained errors and required a clarification affirmation from its costs draftsman to confirm the correct amount. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the principles of costs under Order 62 rule 5 and rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court, and referred to the precedent of In re Elgindata Ltd (No.2) [1992] 1 LWR 1207. The court held that a successful party may only be deprived of part of its costs if it raises issues on which it fails, and such issues significantly increase the length or costs of the proceedings. In this case, the Plaintiff's clarification affirmation did not significantly prolong the hearing or increase costs, thus not meeting the criteria for depriving costs. The court also noted that the Plaintiff had actually paid more in costs than it claimed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedent cited was In re Elgindata Ltd (No.2) [1992] 1 LWR 1207, which established the principle for depriving a successful party of costs: when that party raises issues on which it fails, and these issues cause a significant increase in the length or costs of the proceedings. This principle was also applied in La Chemise Lacoste SA v Crocodile Garments Ltd. [2000] 4 HKC 317. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the 1st Defendant's summons for variation of costs. The costs order nisi in favour of the Plaintiff became absolute, with the exception that any costs related to the filing of the affirmation by Nelson Yu Shiu Ming on 1 June 2011 were disallowed. The 1st Defendant was ordered to pay the Plaintiff's costs for this summons. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principles governing costs applications in Hong Kong, where costs generally follow the event unless there are special circumstances. Even if a successful party makes errors in its bill of costs, the court may uphold the original costs order if these errors do not significantly increase the length or costs of the proceedings, though costs occasioned by the party's own mistakes may be disallowed. --- ### 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.