訟費命令上訴許可的標準？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Waddington Limited v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：駱應淦暫委法官 (Deputy High Court Judge Lok) - 判決日期：2013年5月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於原告申請許可，允許其英屬維爾京群島 (BVI) 法律專家 Mr Richard Millett, QC 透過視像會議設施作證（「視像連結申請」）。原告於2013年4月30日提出該申請。第一被告的律師要求提供專家報告副本以作考慮，但原告律師以內容與申請無關為由拒絕提供，並指責第一被告阻礙訴訟進程。雙方於2013年5月15日出庭，法庭要求原告提供報告後，第一被告的資深大律師 Mr Lee 表示不反對視像連結申請。法庭隨後就視像連結申請的訟費作出裁決，原告現申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告申請上訴許可，反對法庭就其視像連結申請所作出的訟費命令。爭議點包括：上訴法庭干預法官酌情決定訟費的原則，以及專家報告內容與視像連結申請的相關性。原告認為報告內容不相關，而第一被告則認為相關，並在審閱報告後才撤回反對。 ### 判決理由 法官分析指，上訴法庭只會在法官未行使酌情權、基於錯誤原則行使、未經審慎行使或行使明顯有缺陷時，才會干預訟費命令。法官認為，在決定是否批准視像連結申請時，專家報告的內容是相關的，因為這有助於判斷專家的可信度，尤其是在專家曾參與具指標性案件的情況下。由於原告拒絕及早提供報告，導致第一被告須出庭，故原告應支付該聆訊的訟費。至於傳票本身的訟費，法官認為第一被告最初的反對並非不合理，且延誤責任不完全在第一被告，因此裁定傳票訟費為訴訟費用 (costs in the cause)。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125，該案例確立了申請上訴許可時，申請人須證明其上訴理據有合理成功機會，而非僅僅是可爭辯的論點。此外，判決也參考了《香港民事訴訟實務守則2013》(Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2013) 中關於上訴法庭干預法官酌情決定訟費的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法官拒絕了原告就訟費命令提出上訴的申請。法官認為上訴法庭干預其酌情決定訟費的機會非常渺茫。原告須支付第一被告於2013年5月15日聆訊的訟費，並獲准聘用一名大律師。傳票本身的訟費則定為訴訟費用。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴法庭在干預法官酌情決定訟費方面的嚴格標準。判決強調，即使是關於程序性申請（如視像作證），相關專家報告的內容也可能對判斷專家的可信度至關重要，因此應及早提供。未能及早提供相關文件可能導致不利的訟費命令。此外，判決亦指出，若延誤責任不完全歸咎於某一方，則訟費可能被定為訴訟費用。 --- ### 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: Waddington Limited v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Lok - Date of Judgment: 31 May 2013 ### Factual Background This case concerns the plaintiff's application for leave to allow its BVI law expert, Mr Richard Millett, QC, to give evidence via video-conferencing facilities ("the Video-Link Application"). The plaintiff filed the summons on 30 April 2013. The 1st defendant's solicitors requested a copy of the expert report for consideration, but the plaintiff's solicitors refused, arguing the content was irrelevant and accusing the 1st defendant of obstructing proceedings. On 15 May 2013, the parties appeared before the court. After the court requested the report, Mr Lee, SC, for the 1st defendant, indicated no objection to the Video-Link Application. The court then made a costs order regarding the application, against which the plaintiff now seeks leave to appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue is the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal against the costs order made by the court concerning its Video-Link Application. Key points of contention include the principles under which an appellate court will interfere with a judge's discretion on costs, and the relevance of the expert report's content to the Video-Link Application. The plaintiff argued the report was irrelevant, while the 1st defendant maintained its relevance, withdrawing its objection only after reviewing it. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge's analysis highlighted that an appellate court will only interfere with a costs order if the judge failed to exercise discretion, exercised it on a false principle, did not exercise it judiciously, or if the exercise was demonstrably flawed. The judge found that the expert report's content was relevant to the Video-Link Application, as it could bear on the expert's credibility, especially given the expert's involvement in a leading case. Since the plaintiff's refusal to provide the report necessitated the hearing, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of that hearing. For the summons itself, the judge deemed the 1st defendant's initial objection not unreasonable and noted that the delay was not solely the 1st defendant's fault, thus ordering costs of the summons to be costs in the cause. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125, which established that an applicant for leave to appeal must show more than just an arguable case, demonstrating reasonable prospects of success. The judgment also referred to the Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2013 regarding the principles for appellate court interference with a judge's discretion in awarding costs. ### Decision & Orders The judge refused the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal against the costs order. The judge concluded that the chance of the Court of Appeal interfering with his exercise of discretion was very slim. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the 1st defendant's costs of the hearing on 15 May 2013, with a certificate for one counsel. The costs of the summons itself were ordered to be costs in the cause. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the strict standards for appellate interference with a judge's discretionary costs orders. It emphasizes that even for procedural applications like video testimony, the content of relevant expert reports can be crucial for assessing an expert's credibility and should be provided promptly. Failure to do so may result in adverse costs orders. Furthermore, if responsibility for delays is not solely attributable to one party, costs may be ordered as costs in the cause. --- ### 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.