訴訟行為不當對訟費判決的影響？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 及其他案件 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Poon J - 判決日期：2012年5月25日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及四宗高等法院訴訟的訟費裁決。原訟法庭法官於2011年7月28日就四宗訴訟作出判決，其中HCA1957/2005、HCA886/2007及HCA1364/2008的原告申索被駁回，而HCA714/2007的原告獲判勝訴。各方現申請更改原先的臨時訟費命令 (order nisi)。吳氏一方申請就HCA1957/2005、HCA714/2007及HCA886/2007判予彌償訟費 (indemnity costs)，並要求李先生 (Mr Lee) 個人承擔訟費，或將HCA1364/2008的訟費與其他三宗案件的訟費抵銷。大島一方則申請HCA1957/2005不作訟費命令，或按比例分攤訟費。李先生則申請吳氏建築有限公司 (WYC) 支付HCA1364/2008的訟費。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於如何根據各方在四宗訴訟中的行為和結果，行使法庭在訟費方面的酌情權。具體爭議點包括：HCA1957/2005是否應維持「不作訟費命令」；HCA714/2007及HCA886/2007是否應判予彌償訟費；李先生作為非訴訟方是否應個人承擔訟費；以及不同案件之間的訟費是否可以抵銷。 ### 判決理由 法官在HCA1957/2005中裁定，儘管一般原則是訟費應隨訴訟結果而定，但考慮到雙方均有捏造證據和提出不可信抗辯的「應受譴責」訴訟行為，為達致整體公正結果，應不作訟費命令。對於HCA714/2007，由於大島一方明知沒有抗辯理由卻捏造抗辯以逃避責任，其訴訟行為構成對法庭的侮辱，故判予彌償訟費。至於李先生的個人訟費責任，法官認為根據《高等法院條例》第52A(2)條及《高等法院規則》第62號命令第6A(1)條，必須將非訴訟方列為訟費目的的當事人並給予其陳述機會，此為程序公平的必要條件，而非僅是技術性要求。由於李先生未被正式列為當事人，且未獲機會就其是否控制訴訟或提供資金等關鍵問題作答，故駁回要求其個人承擔訟費的申請。關於訟費抵銷，法官認為HCA1364/2008與其他三宗案件的當事人及申索均無關聯，故不予抵銷。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例闡述訟費原則： - Mariner International Hotels Ltd v Atlas Ltd (No 2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 246：確立訟費一般原則是「訟費隨結果而定」，但特殊情況下法庭可酌情偏離此原則。 - Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207：指出即使勝訴方在某些議題上敗訴，若導致訴訟時間或成本顯著增加，其訟費可能會被削減。 - Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No 2) (2004) 7 HKCFAR 114：重申彌償訟費的酌情權不受限制，但通常在訴訟帶有不正當動機、欺騙行為或構成對法庭侮辱時判予。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭最終裁定：HCA1957/2005維持不作訟費命令；HCA714/2007的訟費由大島建築有限公司 (BIC) 以彌償基準支付予吳氏發展有限公司 (WYD)；HCA886/2007的臨時訟費命令維持不變；HCA1364/2008的訟費由吳氏建築有限公司 (WYC) 支付予李先生 (Mr Lee)。吳氏一方要求李先生個人承擔訟費及訟費抵銷的申請均被駁回。各方就訟費變更申請的訟費不作命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了法庭在處理訟費問題時，不僅考慮訴訟結果，還會嚴格審視各方的訴訟行為，包括是否捏造證據或提出虛假抗辯。即使是勝訴方，若其行為構成對法庭的侮辱，也可能被判處彌償訟費。此外，判決重申了對非訴訟方施加訟費命令的嚴格程序要求，即必須將其列為當事人並給予充分的陳述機會，以確保程序公平。 --- ### 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: BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED and other actions - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Poon J - Date of Judgment: 25 May 2012 ### Factual Background This decision concerns costs orders for four High Court actions. The judge had previously handed down a judgment on 28 July 2011, dismissing the claims in HCA1957/2005, HCA886/2007, and HCA1364/2008, while entering judgment for the plaintiff in HCA714/2007. The parties now apply to vary the costs orders nisi. The Wu Yi Parties sought indemnity costs for HCA1957/2005, HCA714/2007, and HCA886/2007, and requested Mr Lee to be personally liable for costs, or for a set-off of costs between HCA1364/2008 and the other three actions. Big Island Construction (HK) Limited (BIC) applied for no order as to costs or apportionment of costs in HCA1957/2005. Mr Lee applied for Wu Yi Construction Company Limited (WYC) to pay his costs in HCA1364/2008. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute revolve around the exercise of the court's discretion on costs, considering the conduct and outcomes of the parties in the four consolidated actions. Specifically, the issues included whether a 'no order as to costs' should be maintained for HCA1957/2005, whether indemnity costs were warranted for HCA714/2007 and HCA886/2007, whether Mr Lee, a non-party, should be personally liable for costs, and whether costs across different actions could be set off. ### Ratio Decidendi For HCA1957/2005, the judge ruled that despite the general rule that costs follow the event, the reprehensible litigation conduct of both parties, including fabricating evidence and advancing incredible defences, warranted no order as to costs to achieve an overall just result. In HCA714/2007, BIC's conduct of inventing a defence to avoid liability, knowing it had no real defence, was deemed an affront to the court, justifying an award of indemnity costs. Regarding Mr Lee's personal liability for costs, the judge held that joining a non-party for costs purposes under section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance and Order 62, rule 6A(1) of the Rules of the High Court is a fundamental requirement for procedural fairness, not merely technical. As Mr Lee was not properly joined and given an opportunity to address critical questions about his control or funding of the actions, the application for personal costs against him was refused. The application for set-off was also refused as HCA1364/2008 involved different parties and unrelated claims. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following precedents were cited to guide the court's analysis on costs: - Mariner International Hotels Ltd v Atlas Ltd (No 2) (2007) 10 HKCFAR 246: Affirmed the general rule that costs follow the event, but discretion allows departure in exceptional circumstances. - Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207: Held that a successful party's costs might be reduced if they significantly increased the length or cost of proceedings by failing on certain issues. - Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No 2) (2004) 7 HKCFAR 114: Reaffirmed the unfettered discretion for indemnity costs, typically awarded for ulterior motives, improper purposes, deception, or conduct constituting an affront to the court. ### Decision & Orders The court ultimately ordered: no order as to costs for HCA1957/2005; indemnity costs to be paid by Big Island Construction (HK) Limited (BIC) to Wu Yi Development Company Limited (WYD) in HCA714/2007; the costs order nisi in HCA886/2007 was made absolute; and Wu Yi Construction Company Limited (WYC) was to pay Mr Lee's costs in HCA1364/2008. The Wu Yi Parties' applications for Mr Lee's personal liability for costs and for costs set-off were both refused. No order as to costs was made for the applications to vary the costs orders. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that the court's discretion on costs extends beyond merely the outcome of the litigation, encompassing the parties' conduct throughout the proceedings. Fabricating evidence or advancing false defences can lead to adverse costs orders, including indemnity costs, even for a successful party. Furthermore, the decision underscores the strict procedural requirements for imposing costs on a non-party, emphasizing the need for proper joinder and an opportunity to be heard to ensure procedural fairness. --- ### 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.