訟費酌情權的行使？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：PFEIFFER GmbH v CHEUNG HAY KIT (經營 SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：關淑馨法官、鮑晏明法官、潘兆初法官 - 判決日期：2014年10月24日 ### 案情摘要 原告Pfeiffer GmbH（「Pfeiffer」）向被告CHEUNG HAY KIT（經營SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION，簡稱「SWC」）索償，指因SWC未能完成準備工程，導致Pfeiffer的船員及設備閒置，要求賠償。原告根據八張發票索償總額為3,025,650港元。原審法官裁定原告勝訴，但僅判給1,024,525港元，因其中四張發票的索償（約佔總額一半）缺乏證據而被駁回。原審法官在訟費裁決中偏離「訟費隨訴訟結果而定」的普遍原則，命令被告僅支付原告一半訟費。原告不服該訟費命令，獲准上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為原審法官在裁定訟費時偏離「訟費隨訴訟結果而定」(costs follow the event) 的普遍原則，是否構成可推翻的錯誤。原告方認為，僅因部分索償缺乏證據不應構成偏離普遍原則的理由，且其延誤展開訴訟已因不獲判給利息而受罰。被告方則認為，原告堅持追討缺乏證據支持的索償，以及延誤展開訴訟，均是法官行使酌情權時應考慮的因素。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在行使訟費酌情權時並無可推翻的錯誤。法庭指出，根據《高等法院規則》第62號命令第3(2)、5及7條，經民事司法改革 (Civil Justice Reform) 修訂後，「訟費隨訴訟結果而定」的原則雖仍是起點，但法庭可更輕易地偏離此原則。法庭強調，當事人無須行為不合理或不當，也可因其在某爭議點上敗訴而被剝奪部分訟費。原告堅持追討缺乏證據支持的索償，以及延誤展開訴訟，均是法官有權考慮的因素。法庭駁回原告關於只有當敗訴爭議點導致訴訟時間或成本顯著增加時才應剝奪訟費的論點，認為此論點在缺乏證據支持的索償中不適用。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Lord Woolf MR 在 AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507 案中的評論，以及張澤祐法官在 Wong Kam Tong v Tin Shing Court, Yuen Long (IO) (No 2) [2012] 2 HKLRD 1128 案中對這些評論的採納，以闡明民事司法改革後訟費酌情權的行使原則。這些案例確立了法庭可更輕易地偏離「訟費隨訴訟結果而定」的普遍原則。此外，本案亦提及 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v HIT Finance Ltd, FACV Nos 8 and 16/2007 及 Moulin Global Eyecare Holding Ltd (in liquidation) v Olivia Lee Sin Mei, HCA 167/2008 兩案，但指出需根據民事司法改革後的規則修訂來理解。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回原告Pfeiffer GmbH的上訴，並命令原告支付被告CHEUNG HAY KIT的訟費。這意味著原審法官命令被告僅支付原告一半訟費的裁決獲得維持。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申，在民事司法改革後，香港法院在處理訟費問題時，可以更靈活地偏離「訟費隨訴訟結果而定」的普遍原則。即使勝訴方無不合理或不當行為，若其堅持追討缺乏證據支持的索償，或存在不合理延誤，法庭仍可酌情剝奪其部分訟費。這鼓勵訴訟各方更審慎地評估其申索，避免不必要地增加訴訟成本。 --- ### 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: PFEIFFER GmbH v CHEUNG HAY KIT trading as SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Kwan, Barma JJA and Poon J - Date of Judgment: 24 October 2014 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Pfeiffer GmbH ("Pfeiffer"), claimed damages against the defendant, CHEUNG HAY KIT trading as SUN WAI CONSTRUCTION ("SWC"), for its crew and equipment standing idle due to SWC's failure to complete preparatory works. Pfeiffer claimed a total of HK$3,025,650 based on eight invoices. The trial judge awarded Pfeiffer HK$1,024,525, disallowing claims under four invoices (nearly half the total) due to lack of evidence. The trial judge departed from the general rule that costs follow the event, ordering the defendant to pay only half of the plaintiff's costs. The plaintiff was granted leave to appeal against this costs order. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the trial judge's departure from the general rule that costs follow the event was a demonstrably flawed exercise of discretion. The plaintiff argued that failure on some items of claim due to insufficient evidence should not, by itself, justify such a departure, and that the delay in commencing proceedings had already been penalized by the refusal to award interest. The defendant contended that the plaintiff's pursuit of unsubstantiated claims and the inordinate delay were valid considerations for the judge's exercise of discretion. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found no demonstrably flawed exercise of discretion by the trial judge regarding costs. The court affirmed that, following amendments to the Rules of the High Court due to Civil Justice Reform, while the "costs follow the event" principle remains a starting point, courts can more readily depart from it. It is no longer necessary for a party to have acted unreasonably or improperly to be deprived of costs for a particular issue on which it failed. The plaintiff's pursuit of claims "doomed to fail" due to lack of evidence and the considerable delay in commencing proceedings were legitimate factors for the judge to consider. The court rejected the argument that costs should only be deprived if the failed issue caused a significant increase in length or costs, noting this makes no sense for claims lacking evidential support. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited Lord Woolf MR's comments in AEI Rediffusion Music Ltd v Phonographic Performance Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 1507 and Cheung JA's adoption of these comments in Wong Kam Tong v Tin Shing Court, Yuen Long (IO) (No 2) [2012] 2 HKLRD 1128. These cases established that the court can more readily depart from the "costs follow the event" principle after the Civil Justice Reform. Commissioner of Inland Revenue v HIT Finance Ltd, FACV Nos 8 and 16/2007 and Moulin Global Eyecare Holding Ltd (in liquidation) v Olivia Lee Sin Mei, HCA 167/2008 were also mentioned, with the caveat that they must be read in light of the post-CJR amendments. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff Pfeiffer GmbH's appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant CHEUNG HAY KIT's costs. This upheld the trial judge's original order that the defendant only pay half of the plaintiff's costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reinforces that Hong Kong courts, post-Civil Justice Reform, have greater flexibility to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event. A successful party may be deprived of part of its costs even without unreasonable or improper conduct, particularly if it pursues unsubstantiated claims or causes inordinate delay. This encourages litigants to be more selective in their claims and avoid unnecessarily increasing litigation costs. --- ### 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.