修訂訴狀是否構成濫用程序？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Marlene Ng (署理高等法院法官) - 判決日期：2013年5月15日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於李氏家族企業的內部糾紛。原告李世南（父親）是家族企業的創辦人，該企業主要製造和銷售錶帶及配件。被告李樹忠（Ken）是父親的長子。家族企業中的兩間公司，Luen Tat Watch Band Manufacturer Limited（Luen Tat）和Pak Tat，先後被清盤。父親聲稱Ken持有Luen Tat和Pak Tat的股份是代他信託持有，而Ken則聲稱自己是這些股份的實益擁有人，並對家族企業的利潤享有權利。本案涉及多項附帶申請，包括修訂訴狀、剔除訴狀部分內容、證人陳述書及文件披露等，這些申請均在審訊前處理，以釐清各方爭議點。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於Ken提出的兩項修訂訴狀申請：「Ken投資訴求」和「Ken利潤訴求」。 「Ken投資訴求」涉及Ken聲稱他與父親共同投資於家族企業的製造部門，並因此實益擁有Pak Tat的50%股權。父親一方反對，認為這構成濫用法院程序，因為相關問題已在早前的清盤程序中被Harris法官裁定。 「Ken利潤訴求」涉及Ken聲稱他有權獲得家族企業的累計利潤，並要求修訂訴狀以反映Mazars會計師事務所核實的具體金額。父親一方反對，認為這些是專家意見而非實質事實，且屬於量化問題，不應在責任審訊階段提出。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，Ken的「投資訴求」不構成濫用法院程序。清盤程序（winding up proceedings）的性質是集體執行債務，而非確定各方權利。Harris法官在清盤案中的裁決並非對各方權利作出明確或決定性的事實認定，因此Ken在本次訴訟中提出相關主張並非重新訴訟（re-litigation）。此外，法官認為「投資訴求」是關於實益權利的責任問題，而非量化問題，且所提出的投資細節是支持其主張的實質事實。 對於「Ken利潤訴求」，法官認為Mazars會計師事務所的計算和核實是歷史事實，而非專家意見。這些計算結果是Ken追討欠款的實質事實，必須在訴狀中列明以使申索清晰可理解。法官強調，即使計算複雜，也不改變其作為可計算債務而非非限定性損害賠償（unliquidated damages）的性質。因此，兩項訴求均獲准許修訂。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例來闡述法律原則： - G L Baker v Medway Building & Supplies Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216, 1231：關於修訂訴狀的普遍原則，即為確定爭議的真正問題或糾正缺陷而允許修訂。 - Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700, 710 – 711：強調法院的目標是裁定各方權利，而非懲罰錯誤或遺漏。 - China North Industries Investment Ltd v Chum [2010] 3 HKLRD 1, 18 – 19：闡述了既判力（res judicata）和濫用程序（abuse of process）的原則，特別是後者不應被過於嚴格地解釋。 - Cambridge Gas Transportation Corpn v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Natvigator Holdings plc & ors [2007] 1 AC 508：指出清盤程序旨在集體執行債務，而非確定權利。 - Wight v Eckhardt Marine GmbH [2003] 3 WLR 414：重申清盤令並非將債權人的申索轉化為判決債務，而是集體執行債務的過程。 - World Food Fair Ltd v Hong Kong Island Development Ltd (2006) 9 HKCFAR 735：關於在判斷是否存在已訂立合約時，應客觀審視所有證據，而非僅依賴模棱兩可的履行行為。 - Hung Sau Fung v Lai Ping Wai [2012] 1 HKLRD 1, 28：關於治療醫生報告中的事實性內容與專家意見的區別，類比於會計師的計算。 ### 裁決與命令 法官批准Ken修訂其經修訂的抗辯書及經修訂的反申索書，以納入「Ken投資訴求」和「Ken利潤訴求」。父親和Seline須相應修訂其答覆和反申索抗辯書。Yuen Hing亦獲准修訂其反申索抗辯書。Ken須向Yuen Hing支付因其修訂申請而產生的訟費。至於Ken與父親/Seline之間的訟費，法官裁定父親和Seline須支付Ken因其成功反對對方阻撓修訂申請而產生的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了法院在處理修訂訴狀申請時的寬鬆態度，特別是在案件尚未進入實質審訊階段，且修訂有助於釐清爭議點時。判決也明確區分了清盤程序與一般民事訴訟中權利確定的性質，指出清盤程序中的裁決不一定構成對實益權利的最終認定，因此不必然導致濫用程序。此外，判決澄清了會計師的計算和核實結果，即使涉及專業技能，也可能被視為實質事實而非專家意見，應允許在訴狀中列明。 --- ### 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: Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Marlene Ng (Deputy High Court Judge) - Date of Judgment: 15 May 2013 ### Factual Background This case arises from an intra-family dispute over a family business. The plaintiff, Lee Sai Nam (the Father), is the founder of a group of companies manufacturing and selling watchbands and accessories. The 1st defendant, Li Shu Chung (Ken), is the Father's eldest son. Two companies within the group, Luen Tat Watch Band Manufacturer Limited (Luen Tat) and Pak Tat, were subsequently wound up. The Father claims Ken held shares in Luen Tat and Pak Tat on trust for him, while Ken asserts beneficial ownership of these shares and entitlement to the group's profits. The case involves numerous interlocutory applications, including amendments to pleadings, striking out parts of pleadings, witness statements, and discovery, all aimed at clarifying the issues before trial. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute revolve around two proposed amendments to Ken's pleadings: the "Ken Investment Plea" and the "Ken Profit Plea." The Ken Investment Plea concerns Ken's claim that he and the Father jointly invested in the manufacturing arm of the family business, leading to his beneficial ownership of 50% of Pak Tat. The Father's side opposed this, arguing it constituted an abuse of process as the matter had been previously determined by Harris J in winding-up proceedings. The Ken Profit Plea relates to Ken's entitlement to accumulated profits of the group, seeking to amend pleadings to reflect specific amounts verified by Mazars, an accounting firm. The Father's side objected, contending these were expert opinions rather than material facts and pertained to quantum, not liability, issues for the trial. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that Ken's "Investment Plea" did not constitute an abuse of process. Winding-up proceedings are collective enforcement of debts, not a determination of rights between parties. Harris J's findings in the winding-up case were not explicit or definitive determinations of rights, thus Ken's current claims were not re-litigation. Furthermore, the judge found the "Investment Plea" to be a liability issue concerning beneficial ownership, not quantum, and the detailed investment particulars were material facts supporting his claim. Regarding the "Ken Profit Plea," the judge held that Mazars' calculations and verification were factual, not expert opinion. These calculations represented material facts essential for Ken's claim for unpaid sums, making it necessary to include them in the pleadings for clarity. The judge emphasized that the complexity of calculation does not change the nature of the claim from a calculable debt to unliquidated damages. Both pleas were therefore allowed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases to establish legal principles: - G L Baker v Medway Building & Supplies Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216, 1231: General principle for allowing amendments to pleadings to determine real questions in controversy or correct defects. - Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700, 710 – 711: Emphasizes the court's objective to decide parties' rights, not punish for errors. - China North Industries Investment Ltd v Chum [2010] 3 HKLRD 1, 18 – 19: Discusses res judicata and abuse of process, noting the latter should not be interpreted too strictly. - Cambridge Gas Transportation Corpn v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Natvigator Holdings plc & ors [2007] 1 AC 508: States that bankruptcy proceedings are for collective enforcement of debts, not establishing rights. - Wight v Eckhardt Marine GmbH [2003] 3 WLR 414: Reaffirms that a winding-up order does not convert a creditor's claim into a judgment debt but is a process of collective enforcement. - World Food Fair Ltd v Hong Kong Island Development Ltd (2006) 9 HKCFAR 735: On objective assessment of all evidence to determine contract existence, not relying solely on equivocal acts of performance. - Hung Sau Fung v Lai Ping Wai [2012] 1 HKLRD 1, 28: Distinguishes factual content from expert opinion in a treating doctor's report, analogously applied to an accountant's calculations. ### Decision & Orders The judge granted Ken leave to further amend his Re-Amended Defence and Re-Amended Counterclaim to include the Ken Investment Plea and the Ken Profit Plea. The Father and Seline were ordered to consequentially amend their Amended Reply and Amended Defence to Counterclaim. Yuen Hing was also granted leave to amend its Defence to Counterclaim. Ken was ordered to pay Yuen Hing's costs occasioned by his amendment application. For costs between Ken and the Father/Seline, the judge ruled that the Father and Seline must pay Ken's costs for successfully resisting their opposition to the amendment application. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the court's liberal approach to applications for leave to amend pleadings, especially when the case is not yet at trial and amendments help clarify disputed points. It also distinguishes the nature of findings in winding-up proceedings from definitive determinations of beneficial rights in civil litigation, clarifying that the former does not necessarily lead to an abuse of process claim. Furthermore, it clarifies that an accountant's calculations and verifications, even if involving professional skills, can be considered material facts rather than expert opinions, and thus permissible in pleadings. --- ### 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.