訟費評定逾期申請是否獲准？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Wing Ming Garment Factory Limited v The Incorporated Owners of Wing Ming Industrial Centre and New Gas & Company - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Mr Recorder Jat SC - 判決日期：2011年12月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗高等法院訴訟 (HCA8805/1993) 及其後的上訴 (CACV27/2008)。原訟法庭於2007年12月20日駁回原告及第三方（統稱「上訴人」）的申索及反申索，並命令他們支付第二被告（「D2」）的訟費。上訴法庭於2008年6月2日駁回上訴人的上訴，並再次命令他們支付D2的訟費。上訴人曾申請上訴至終審法院，但最終於2009年11月3日放棄。D2的律師因等待上訴結果及嘗試庭外和解，未能在《高等法院規則》 (Rules of the High Court, RHC) 第62號命令第22條第(7)款規定的兩年期限內啟動訟費評定程序。D2於2011年6月6日提交訟費評定通知書，上訴人隨即申請剔除該通知書，理由是已過時限。D2則申請延長啟動訟費評定程序的時間。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於法院應否行使其酌情權，延長第二被告啟動訟費評定程序的時間。上訴人認為，《高等法院規則》第62號命令第22條第(7)款規定的兩年期限應被嚴格執行，除非有充分和令人信服的理由。第二被告則認為，該兩年期限並非《時效條例》 (Limitation Ordinance) 下的「時效期」，法院有權酌情延長，且不應因律師的疏忽而懲罰當事人。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，《高等法院規則》第62號命令第22條第(7)款規定的兩年期限並非《時效條例》下的「時效期」，因為該期限可以根據第62號命令第16條延長，且允許追溯性延長。法官強調，法院在行使酌情權時，必須考慮案件的所有相關情況，而非僅限於是否有充分解釋。儘管延誤時間較長且律師存在疏忽，但法官認為拒絕延長時間將對第二被告造成不合比例的懲罰，並會讓上訴人獲得不應得的利益。此外，第62號命令第22條第(5)款賦予訟費評定官足夠的彈性，可以通過調整訟費或利息來處理延誤問題，以達致公正結果。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回上訴人要求剔除第二被告訟費評定通知書的上訴，並批准第二被告延長啟動訟費評定程序的時間。法官命令上訴人支付第二被告就本次上訴的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《高等法院規則》第62號命令第22條第(7)款規定的兩年期限並非絕對的「時效期」，法院在考慮延長時間時擁有廣泛的酌情權。即使存在律師疏忽導致的延誤，法院仍會權衡所有因素，避免對當事人施加不合比例的懲罰，並可利用訟費評定官的權力來處理延誤造成的影響。 --- ### 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: Wing Ming Garment Factory Limited v The Incorporated Owners of Wing Ming Industrial Centre and New Gas & Company - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Mr Recorder Jat SC - Date of Judgment: 29 December 2011 ### Factual Background This case originated from a High Court action (HCA8805/1993) and a subsequent appeal (CACV27/2008). The Court of First Instance dismissed the claims and counterclaims of the Plaintiff and Third Party (collectively, "Appellants") on 20 December 2007, ordering them to pay the costs of the 2nd Defendant ("D2"). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellants' appeal on 2 June 2008, again ordering them to pay D2's costs. The Appellants sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal but ultimately abandoned it on 3 November 2009. D2's solicitors, awaiting the appeal outcome and attempting settlement, failed to commence taxation proceedings within the two-year period prescribed by Order 62 rule 22(7) of the Rules of the High Court (RHC). D2 filed notices of commencement of taxation on 6 June 2011, which the Appellants sought to strike out as time-barred. D2 applied for an extension of time to commence taxation. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time for the 2nd Defendant to commence taxation proceedings. The Appellants argued that the two-year period under RHC O.62 r.22(7) should be strictly enforced unless there were genuine and compelling mitigating circumstances. The 2nd Defendant contended that the two-year period was not a "limitation period" akin to those under the Limitation Ordinance, and the court had discretion to extend time, arguing that a party should not be penalized for their solicitor's oversight. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge held that the two-year period under RHC O.62 r.22(7) is not a "limitation period" in the technical sense, as it can be extended under O.62 r.16, including retrospectively. The judge emphasized that in exercising discretion, the court must consider all relevant circumstances, not just the presence of a good explanation. Despite the substantial delay and the solicitor's oversight, the judge found that refusing the extension would be a disproportionate penalty to D2 and would result in an unjustified windfall for the Appellants. Furthermore, O.62 r.22(5) provides the taxing master with sufficient flexibility to address the delay by adjusting costs or interest to achieve a just outcome. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the Appellants' appeals to strike out the 2nd Defendant's notices of commencement of taxation and granted the 2nd Defendant an extension of time to commence taxation proceedings. The Appellants were ordered to pay the 2nd Defendant's costs for these appeals. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies that the two-year period under RHC O.62 r.22(7) is not an absolute limitation period, and courts retain broad discretion to extend time. Even in cases of solicitor oversight leading to delay, the court will weigh all factors to avoid disproportionate penalties on parties, utilizing the taxing master's powers to mitigate the effects of delay and ensure a just result. --- ### 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.