上訴待決期間暫緩執行令的訟費評定？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG (林秀峰) v TAN SOON GIN GEORGE (陳松青) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：朱芬齡上訴法庭法官 (Hon Chu JA) - 判決日期：2011年12月16日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩宗訴訟的訟費評定 (assessment of costs)。第一宗是HCA2576/2005中，被告兼反申索人 (defendant by counterclaim) Tan就其上訴待決期間申請暫緩執行 (application for stay of execution pending appeal) 所需支付予原告兼反申索人 (plaintiff by counterclaim) Lam的訟費。第二宗是HCA2545/2005中，原告 (plaintiff in the Issue) Tan就Lam申請支付款項 (application for payment out) 所需支付予被告 (defendant in the Issue) Lam的訟費。法庭已於2011年7月26日作出總額訟費命令 (gross sum costs orders)，並指示雙方提交訟費清單、反對意見及答覆。Lam的律師提交了「訟費估算」，Tan的律師則提交了「反對清單」，Lam的律師隨後提交了答覆。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於如何評定兩宗相關申請的訟費。具體而言，法庭需要審核Lam律師提交的訟費估算，包括律師專業費用 (solicitors' professional costs) 和大律師費用 (counsel fees)，並考慮Tan律師提出的反對意見。主要爭議點包括律師的合理時薪、與客戶及大律師溝通的時間是否過長、草擬文件的費用是否過高，以及大律師費用是否合理，尤其是在總額訟費評定 (gross sum assessment) 的原則下。 ### 判決理由 法庭在評定訟費時，遵循《高等法院規則》第62號命令第28(2)條，即訟費必須是為達致司法公正或強制執行或捍衛一方權利所必需或適當的。對於律師專業費用，法庭審視了律師的資歷和經驗，並根據案件的複雜性和緊急性調整了時薪和工作時間。例如，對於與客戶溝通的時間，儘管有解釋，法庭仍認為部分時間過高並予以削減。對於大律師費用，法庭考慮了案件的重要性、大律師的資歷以及是否有兩名大律師的證明書，並對部分費用進行了調整，例如首席大律師的費用和草擬誓章的費用。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定，在HCA2576/2005中，Lam就Tan申請暫緩執行的訟費總額評定為港幣651,800元。在HCA2545/2005中，Lam就其申請支付款項的訟費總額評定為港幣17,333元。法庭對律師專業費用和大律師費用均作出了調整，部分費用獲得全數批准，部分則被削減。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在總額訟費評定中，律師事務所提交的訟費估算應嚴格遵守《實務指示》14.3的格式要求，並應採取建設性態度處理訟費評定。法庭重申，訟費評定應基於「一方對一方」原則 (party-and-party basis)，即只允許為達致司法公正或捍衛當事人權利所必需或適當的費用。即使有緊急情況，過高的溝通時間或草擬費用仍可能被削減。 --- ### 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: LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG (林秀峰) v TAN SOON GIN GEORGE (陳松青) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chu JA - Date of Judgment: 16 December 2011 ### Factual Background This case concerns the assessment of costs for two related proceedings. The first is in HCA2576/2005, regarding costs payable by Tan (defendant by counterclaim) to Lam (plaintiff by counterclaim) for Tan's application for a stay of execution pending appeal. The second is in HCA2545/2005, concerning costs payable by Tan (plaintiff in the Issue) to Lam (defendant in the Issue) for Lam's application for payment out. Gross sum costs orders were made on 26 July 2011, with directions for parties to provide statements of costs, objections, and replies. Lam's solicitors filed an "Estimation of Costs," to which Tan's solicitors filed a "List of Objections," and Lam's solicitors subsequently filed a Reply. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was the assessment of costs for two related applications. Specifically, the court had to review the costs estimations submitted by Lam's solicitors, covering both solicitors' professional costs and counsel fees, and consider the objections raised by Tan's solicitors. Key points of contention included the reasonableness of solicitors' hourly rates, the time spent on communications with clients and counsel, the quantum of drafting fees, and the appropriateness of counsel fees, particularly under the principles of gross sum assessment. ### Ratio Decidendi The court, in assessing costs, adhered to Order 62 rule 28(2) of the Rules of the High Court, which stipulates that costs are only allowed if they are necessary or proper for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or defending a party's rights. For solicitors' professional costs, the court considered the solicitors' qualifications and experience, adjusting hourly rates and time spent based on the case's complexity and urgency. For instance, time spent on client communications was deemed excessive in parts and reduced, despite explanations. For counsel fees, the court considered the importance of the applications, counsel's seniority, and the certificate for two counsel, making adjustments to leading counsel's brief fee and affirmation drafting fees. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court ruled that the total costs allowed for Lam in HCA2576/2005, regarding Tan's application for a stay of execution, were assessed at HK$651,800. For HCA2545/2005, the total costs allowed for Lam's application for payment out were assessed at HK$17,333. Adjustments were made to both solicitors' professional costs and counsel fees, with some items fully approved and others reduced. ### Key Takeaways This judgment emphasizes that in gross sum costs assessments, solicitors' estimations should strictly follow Practice Direction 14.3 and adopt a constructive approach. The court reiterated that costs assessment should be on a party-and-party basis, allowing only costs that are necessary or proper for achieving justice or defending a party's rights. Even in urgent situations, excessive communication time or drafting fees may be reduced. --- ### 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.