多被告訴訟中成功被告的訟費承擔？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：FUNG CHUN MAN v HOSPITAL AUTHORITY and SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE for and on behalf of SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH - 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因醫療疏忽導致心臟不必要手術，向醫院管理局（第一被告）及律政司司長（代表食物及衞生局局長，第二被告）提出人身傷害訴訟。第二被告在審訊開始時承認疏忽診斷，並對由此造成的所有損失負責。原告人獲准終止對第一被告的訴訟。法庭隨後判原告人勝訴，並頒布臨時訟費命令 (costs order nisi)，要求第二被告支付原告人的訟費及第一被告的訟費。第二被告申請更改此訟費命令，要求第一被告的訟費由原告人支付。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於，在第二被告承認責任後，原告人是否仍有合理理由繼續對第一被告提出訴訟。第二被告主張，第一被告的訟費應由原告人承擔，而非由第二被告承擔。法庭需要判斷是否應維持原來的「桑德森命令」(Sanderson order)，即由第二被告直接支付第一被告的訟費，或改為「布洛克命令」(Bullock order)，即原告人先支付第一被告訟費再向第二被告追討。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了「桑德森命令」和「布洛克命令」的適用原則，強調關鍵在於原告人對成功被告提出訴訟是否合理。法庭引用了Besterman v British Motor Cab Co. Ltd.的原則，指出若原告人合理地對兩名被告提出訴訟，且無法確定哪一方是真正應負責者，則成功被告的訟費應由有過失的被告承擔。考慮到原告人所取得的專家醫療證據，以及第二被告否認責任且存在可能獲免責的風險，法庭認為原告人繼續對第一被告提出訴訟是合理的。因此，法庭維持了由第二被告直接支付第一被告訟費的「桑德森命令」。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例，並依據其原則進行分析： - Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co. [1903] 2 KB 533, CA：確立了「桑德森命令」的原則。 - Besterman v British Motor Cab Co. Ltd. [1914] 3 KB 181：闡明了在合理情況下，成功被告的訟費應由有過失的被告承擔。 - Goldsworth v Brickell [1987] 1 CH 378：確認法庭在訟費方面的廣泛酌情權。 - Mulready v Bell [1953] 2 All E.R. 215：澄清了不同訴訟因由不影響「桑德森命令」或「布洛克命令」的適用性。 - Lee Lai Ha & Anor. v. Hong Sau Ling & Anor. [1993] 1 HKLR 86：強調法庭在行使酌情權時應考慮案件結束前的不確定性。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了第二被告更改臨時訟費命令的申請，維持了原判。即第二被告須支付原告人的訟費，以及第一被告的訟費（「桑德森命令」）。此外，法庭指示第二被告支付本次申請的訟費，並指示原告人的訟費根據法律援助規例進行評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了在多被告訴訟中，法庭在決定訟費分攤時，會著重考慮原告人對成功被告提出訴訟的合理性。即使最終只有一名被告被判有責，若原告人在訴訟初期面對責任否認及不確定性，其對其他被告的訴訟仍可能被視為合理，從而導致「桑德森命令」或「布洛克命令」的適用。這對處理複雜醫療疏忽案件中的多方責任問題具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 for and on behalf of SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Bharwaney J - Date of Judgment: 20 February 2012 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Fung Chun Man, brought a personal injuries action against the Hospital Authority (1st Defendant) and the Secretary for Justice (for and on behalf of the Secretary for Food and Health, 2nd Defendant) due to medical negligence resulting in an unnecessary heart operation. The 2nd Defendant admitted negligent diagnosis and responsibility for all resulting loss at the commencement of the trial. The plaintiff was granted leave to discontinue proceedings against the 1st Defendant. The court entered judgment for the plaintiff and made a costs order nisi, requiring the 2nd Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs and the 1st Defendant's costs. The 2nd Defendant applied to vary this costs order, seeking an order that the 1st Defendant's costs be paid by the plaintiff. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed against the 1st Defendant after the 2nd Defendant admitted liability. The 2nd Defendant argued that the 1st Defendant's costs should be borne by the plaintiff, not by the 2nd Defendant. The court had to determine whether to uphold the original Sanderson order, where the 2nd Defendant directly pays the 1st Defendant's costs, or to substitute it with a Bullock order, where the plaintiff pays the 1st Defendant's costs and then recovers them from the 2nd Defendant. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the principles governing Sanderson and Bullock orders, emphasizing that the key consideration is whether it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed against the successful defendant. Citing Besterman v British Motor Cab Co. Ltd., the court noted that if it is reasonable to join both defendants due to uncertainty about liability, the successful defendant's costs form part of the reasonable costs of the action to be borne by the blameworthy party. Given the expert medical evidence obtained by the plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant's denial of liability and the real risk of being absolved, the court found it reasonable for the plaintiff to continue proceedings against the 1st Defendant. Therefore, the court upheld the Sanderson order, requiring the 2nd Defendant to directly pay the 1st Defendant's costs. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases were cited and influenced the judge's analysis: - Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co. [1903] 2 KB 533, CA: Established the principle of a Sanderson order. - Besterman v British Motor Cab Co. Ltd. [1914] 3 KB 181: Clarified that costs of a successful defendant can be part of reasonable costs borne by the blameworthy defendant. - Goldsworth v Brickell [1987] 1 CH 378: Affirmed the court's wide discretion over costs. - Mulready v Bell [1953] 2 All E.R. 215: Addressed the applicability of Sanderson/Bullock orders even with different causes of action. - Lee Lai Ha & Anor. v. Hong Sau Ling & Anor. [1993] 1 HKLR 86: Stressed considering uncertainties before conclusion when exercising discretion. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the 2nd Defendant's application to vary the costs order nisi, upholding the original decision. This means the 2nd Defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs and the 1st Defendant's costs (a Sanderson order). Additionally, the court directed the 2nd Defendant to pay the costs of this application and ordered the plaintiff's own costs to be taxed pursuant to the Legal Aid Regulations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in multi-defendant litigation, the court prioritizes the reasonableness of the plaintiff's decision to sue a successful defendant when allocating costs. Even if only one defendant is ultimately found liable, if the plaintiff faced denial of liability and uncertainty at the outset, their action against other defendants may be deemed reasonable, justifying a Sanderson or Bullock order. This provides guidance for complex medical negligence cases involving multiple parties. --- ### 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.