法庭能否以書面方式處理訟費申請？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHOY BING WING v PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、倫明高上訴法官、麥機智上訴法官 - 判決日期：2014年5月12日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於上訴人 Choy Bing Wing 針對香港工程師學會會長（答辯人）提出的上訴。上訴法庭於2014年2月19日下令，除非上訴人於2014年3月5日前提交文件夾草稿以供批准，否則上訴將被剔除。上訴人未能遵守此期限，導致上訴被剔除。答辯人其後於2014年3月13日申請上訴訟費。法庭指示以書面方式處理訟費申請，並要求上訴人提交書面陳詞，但他拒絕並質疑法庭以書面方式處理的權力，同時對法庭提出不當指控。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於上訴法庭是否有權以書面方式處理訟費申請，以及在一方未能提交書面陳詞的情況下，法庭應如何處理訟費命令。上訴人聲稱他有權親自出庭就訟費問題進行辯論，並指控法庭與答辯人串謀詐騙他。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，根據《高等法院規則》第1A號命令第4(2)(j)條，法庭有權以積極案件管理 (active case management) 的方式，指示以書面方式處理簡單的訟費申請。法庭引用了 Ribeiro PJ 在 Chow Shun Yung v Wei Pih 一案中的判詞，指出聆訊權利不一定需要口頭陳詞。鑑於訟費事宜簡單、口頭聆訊不合比例地增加成本、不符司法資源公平分配，以及上訴人之前缺席聆訊並對法庭作出不當言論，法庭認為以書面方式處理是適當的。由於上訴已被駁回，訟費應按事件結果判給答辯人。 ### 引用案例與條文 Chow Shun Yung v Wei Pih (2003) 6 HKCFAR 299：此案例被引用以支持法庭有權在某些情況下以書面方式處理聆訊，並指出聆訊權利不一定需要口頭陳詞。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定答辯人勝訴。由於上訴已被剔除，上訴人須支付答辯人就本次上訴的訟費。若雙方未能達成協議，訟費將由法庭評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了上訴法庭在積極案件管理下的廣泛權力，特別是在處理簡單的訟費申請時，可以指示以書面方式進行。它強調了司法效率的重要性，並指出當事人對法庭的無端攻擊不會阻礙司法程序。此外，判決也提醒當事人，即使有機會提交書面陳詞，若選擇不提交，法庭仍會根據現有資料作出裁決。 --- ### 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: CHOY BING WING v PRESIDENT OF HONG KONG INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS (HKIE) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Lunn JA, Macrae JA - Date of Judgment: 12 May 2014 ### Factual Background This case originated from an appeal by the Plaintiff, Choy Bing Wing, against the President of the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers (HKIE), the Defendant. The Court of Appeal ordered on 19 February 2014 that the appeal would be struck out unless the Plaintiff produced a draft bundle for approval by 5 March 2014. The Plaintiff failed to comply, leading to the appeal being struck out. The Defendant subsequently applied for costs of the appeal on 13 March 2014. The court directed the costs application to be dealt with on paper, requiring the Plaintiff to submit written arguments, but he refused and challenged the court's power to proceed on paper, making improper allegations against the court. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this case were whether the Court of Appeal had the power to deal with a costs application on paper, and how the court should proceed with a costs order when one party fails to submit written arguments. The Plaintiff claimed a right to attend court in person to argue for costs and accused the court and the Defendant of conspiracy to defraud him. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that it has the power, under Order 1A rule 4(2)(j) of the Rules of the High Court, to direct simple costs applications to be dealt with on paper as part of active case management. The court cited Ribeiro PJ in Chow Shun Yung v Wei Pih, stating that the right to a hearing does not always require oral submissions. Given the simplicity of the costs matter, the disproportionality of an oral hearing, the need for fair distribution of judicial resources, the Plaintiff's prior absence, and his abusive remarks, the court found paper disposal appropriate. Since the appeal was dismissed, costs should follow the event and be awarded to the Defendant. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Chow Shun Yung v Wei Pih (2003) 6 HKCFAR 299: This case was cited to support the court's power to deal with hearings on paper in certain circumstances, noting that the right to a hearing does not always require oral submissions. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled in favour of the Defendant. As the appeal had been struck out, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Court of Appeal's broad powers under active case management, particularly in directing simple costs applications to be handled on paper. It underscores the importance of judicial efficiency and indicates that unwarranted attacks on the court will not derail the judicial process. Furthermore, it reminds litigants that if they choose not to submit written arguments despite being given the opportunity, the court will still make a decision based on the available information. --- ### 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.