未付費，訟費利息怎算？？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and Secretary for Justice - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Bharwaney J - 判決日期：2012年2月20日 ### 案情摘要 原告人Fung Chun Man在針對醫院管理局（第一被告）和律政司司長（代表食物及衞生局局長，第二被告）的訴訟中，於2011年11月11日獲判勝訴，獲判賠償港幣1,381,694元及利息。法院當時發出了一項臨時訟費命令 (costs order nisi)，裁定第二被告須支付原告人及第一被告的訟費。其後，第一被告和第二被告分別提出傳票申請，要求更改該臨時訟費命令。他們提出更改的理由是，原告人未能擊敗兩被告於2011年8月31日之前共同提出的港幣1,750,000元認可付款 (sanctioned payment)。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於，當原告人未能擊敗被告方提出的認可付款時，應如何處理訟費命令，特別是關於訟費的彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 和加強利息 (enhanced interest) 的問題。爭議點包括加強利息的計算期間，以及對於受公帑資助的訴訟人（如律政司司長代表的政府部門）和法律援助受助人，其訟費加強利息應如何計算，尤其是在未實際支付訟費和開支的情況下。 ### 判決理由 法官根據《實務守則》第22條（認可付款）的原則，裁定由於原告人未能擊敗被告方提出的認可付款，因此應更改臨時訟費命令。法院命令原告人須支付兩被告自2011年9月1日起至判決日期的訟費，並以彌償基準計算，包括本次申請的訟費。關於加強利息，法官重申在 Shih Pik Nog v. G2000 (Apparel) Ltd. 一案中確立的原則，即加強利息應僅適用於認可付款接受期限屆滿後至判決日期的期間，且通常要求實際支付了訟費和開支。然而，對於受公帑資助的訴訟人，即使未實際支付訟費，只要相關工作在該期間內完成，仍可獲判加強利息。對於開支，加強利息應從實際支付日期起計算，而非負債產生日期。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了 Shih Pik Nog v. G2000 (Apparel) Ltd. [2011] 4 HKLRD 121，該案例確立了關於訟費加強利息的計算原則，即加強利息應僅適用於認可付款接受期限屆滿後至判決日期的期間，且通常要求實際支付了訟費和開支。此外，法院提及了 KR v. Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd. [2003] PIQR P30 一案中Waller LJ的觀點，但拒絕採納其關於加強利息應從負債產生日期起計算的意見。 ### 裁決與命令 法院更改了原訟費命令，裁定原告人須支付第一被告和第二被告自2011年9月1日起至判決日期的訟費，並以彌償基準計算，包括本次申請的訟費。法院拒絕向第一被告判給加強利息，但向第二被告判給年利率9%的加強利息，適用於2011年8月31日後完成的工作、2011年9月28日支付的調解員費用，以及2011年10月13日支付的律師費用。法院亦指示原告人的訟費須根據《法律援助規例》評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決明確了在認可付款未能擊敗的情況下，訟費命令的調整原則，特別是關於彌償訟費和加強利息的應用。它強調了對於受公帑資助的訴訟人（如律政司司長代表的政府部門），即使未實際支付訟費，只要相關工作在認可付款期限屆滿後至判決日期期間完成，仍可獲判加強利息。然而，對於開支，加強利息應從實際支付日期起計算，以避免不公平的意外收益 (unjust windfall)。 --- ### 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: Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority and Secretary for Justice - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Bharwaney J - Date of Judgment: 20 February 2012 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Fung Chun Man, obtained judgment on 11 November 2011 for HK$1,381,694 plus interest against the 2nd defendant (Secretary for Justice). A costs order nisi was made, directing the 2nd defendant to pay the costs of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. Subsequently, both the 1st and 2nd defendants applied by summons to vary this costs order nisi. Their application was based on the plaintiff's failure to beat a sanctioned payment of HK$1,750,000 jointly made by them, which was available for acceptance until 31 August 2011. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case concerned the variation of a costs order when the plaintiff failed to beat a sanctioned payment, specifically regarding indemnity costs and enhanced interest. Key points of contention included the period for which enhanced interest should be calculated, and how enhanced interest should apply to publicly funded litigants (such as government departments represented by the Secretary for Justice) and legally aided persons, particularly when costs and disbursements have not been physically paid. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge varied the costs order nisi because the plaintiff failed to beat the sanctioned payment, in line with Practice Direction 22 (Sanctioned Payments). The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs of both defendants from 1 September 2011 to the date of judgment on an indemnity basis, including the costs of the application. Regarding enhanced interest, the judge reaffirmed the principles from Shih Pik Nog v. G2000 (Apparel) Ltd., stating that enhanced interest should only apply from the last date of acceptance of the sanctioned payment to the date of judgment, and typically requires actual payment of costs and disbursements. However, for publicly funded litigants, enhanced interest may be awarded for work done during this period even if costs are not physically paid. For disbursements, enhanced interest should run from the date of actual payment, not when the liability accrued. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The primary precedent cited was Shih Pik Nog v. G2000 (Apparel) Ltd. [2011] 4 HKLRD 121, which established principles for calculating enhanced interest on costs, specifically that it should apply from the last date of acceptance of a sanctioned payment to the date of judgment, and generally requires actual payment of costs and disbursements. The court also referred to Waller LJ's view in KR v. Bryn Alyn Community (Holdings) Ltd. [2003] PIQR P30 but declined to follow his opinion that enhanced interest should be awarded from the date liability for payment accrued. ### Decision & Orders The court varied the original costs order, directing the plaintiff to pay the 1st and 2nd defendants' costs from 1 September 2011 to the date of judgment on an indemnity basis, including the costs of this application. Enhanced interest was denied to the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant was awarded enhanced interest at 9% per annum on costs incurred for work done after 31 August 2011, on mediator's fees paid on 28 September 2011, and on counsel's fees paid on 13 October 2011. The plaintiff's own costs were directed to be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the principles for adjusting costs orders when a sanctioned payment is not beaten, particularly concerning indemnity costs and enhanced interest. It highlights that for publicly funded litigants, enhanced interest can be awarded for work done during the relevant period even without actual payment of costs. However, for disbursements, enhanced interest should accrue from the date of actual payment to prevent an unjust windfall, distinguishing it from the date liability for payment was incurred. --- ### 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.