訟費命令與臨時付款？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：馮柏棟資深大律師 (Mr Recorder Patrick Fung SC) - 判決日期：2014年12月17日 ### 案情摘要 原告Waddington Limited對第一被告Chan Chun Hoo Thomas及其他被告提起訴訟。本判決涉及原告就其於2014年11月26日作出的判決（「我的判決」）中關於訟費的命令提出傳票申請。原告尋求更改原訟法庭暫定訟費命令 (order nisi) 的條款，要求第五被告立即支付訟費，並從第一被告於2014年3月21日存入法庭的款項中支付。原告認為，根據2014年3月10日的命令，第五被告應賠償其未能從第一被告處追回的任何訟費。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告提出的傳票申請，即是否應更改原訟法庭暫定訟費命令 (order nisi)，要求第五被告立即支付臨時付款申請的訟費，並從第一被告存入法庭的款項中支付，且無需進行訟費評定 (taxation)。原告主張其有權獲得臨時付款申請的訟費，並應以彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 支付。第五被告最初同意，但後來撤回同意。 ### 判決理由 法官分析認為，原告誤解了2014年3月10日命令的效力。該命令僅處理訴訟審訊的訟費，而未涉及臨時付款申請的訟費，因為該申請在命令作出時尚未提出。此外，該命令僅處理原告與第一被告之間訴訟的訟費。臨時付款申請是原告與第五被告之間的獨立爭議，與第一被告無關。法官重申，臨時付款申請的訟費應按當事人與當事人基準 (party and party basis) 評定，而非彌償基準，且需進行訟費評定。因此，法官駁回了原告更改訟費命令的請求。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了原告更改訟費命令暫定命令的申請。法官裁定臨時付款申請的訟費應由第五被告支付給原告，並按當事人與當事人基準進行訟費評定。此外，原告須支付其傳票申請的訟費予第五被告。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了訟費命令的解釋應嚴格依據其條款，且不同申請的訟費命令應獨立處理。法庭明確指出，除非另有明確規定，否則訟費應按當事人與當事人基準評定，而非彌償基準，且通常需要進行訟費評定。這對未來涉及多方訴訟和多個申請的訟費處理具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: Mr Recorder Patrick Fung SC - Date of Judgment: 17 December 2014 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Waddington Limited, brought an action against the 1st defendant, Chan Chun Hoo Thomas, and other defendants. This judgment concerns the plaintiff's summons application regarding a costs order made in the judge's decision on 26 November 2014. The plaintiff sought to vary the terms of an order nisi as to costs, requesting the 5th defendant to pay costs forthwith from the sum paid into court by the 1st defendant on 21 March 2014. The plaintiff contended that the 5th defendant should indemnify it for any costs not recoverable from the 1st defendant, based on an order dated 10 March 2014. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether the order nisi as to costs should be varied to require the 5th defendant to pay the costs of the Interim Payment Application forthwith from the sum paid into court by the 1st defendant, and without the need for taxation. The plaintiff argued it was entitled to these costs on an indemnity basis. The 5th defendant initially agreed to the variation but later withdrew its consent. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge analyzed that the plaintiff misunderstood the effect of paragraph 5 of the March 10, 2014 Order. That order dealt only with the costs of the trial of the action and did not cover the costs of the Interim Payment Application, which had not even been issued at the time. Furthermore, it only concerned costs incurred by the plaintiff in the lis between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The Interim Payment Application was a separate argument strictly between the plaintiff and the 5th defendant, unrelated to the 1st defendant. The judge reiterated that the costs of the Interim Payment Application should be taxed on a party and party basis, not an indemnity basis, and required taxation. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to vary the costs order was refused. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the plaintiff's application to vary the order nisi as to costs. The costs of the Interim Payment Application were ordered to be paid by the 5th defendant to the plaintiff, to be taxed on a party and party basis. Additionally, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of its summons application to the 5th defendant. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that costs orders must be interpreted strictly according to their terms, and costs for different applications should be treated independently. The court clarified that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, costs are to be taxed on a party and party basis, not an indemnity basis, and taxation is generally required. This provides guidance for handling costs in future multi-party litigation with multiple applications. --- ### 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.