多項申索互有勝負時的訟費分配？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO. LTD 及 SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY 訴 GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED 及 鍾志強 及 EHHAN TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：林文瀚法官 (Hon Lam J) - 判決日期：2005年6月8日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告與首被告及次被告之間的訴訟，原告在多項訴訟中取得部分成功，包括假冒 (passing off)、違反協議 (breach of agreement) 及惡意虛假陳述 (malicious falsehood) 等，並成功確立次被告的個人法律責任 (personal liability)。然而，原告在版權 (copyright) 及註冊商標 (registered trade mark) 侵權申索方面未能完全成功。本判決主要處理訟費 (costs) 問題，包括先前已作出的臨時訟費命令 (costs order nisi) 的變更申請，以及各方在訴訟過程中提出的多項中間申請 (interlocutory applications) 的訟費處理。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於如何分配訴訟各方的訟費，特別是考慮到原告在不同申索中取得不同程度的成功與失敗。被告方認為，由於原告在版權及註冊商標申索中敗訴，且在假冒申索中部分證據被質疑，應由原告支付部分訟費，甚至按彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 支付。原告則主張，作為整體勝訴方，應獲判訟費，並指出各項申索的證據相互交織，不應簡單地按個別申索的結果分配訟費。 ### 判決理由 法官在行使酌情權 (discretion) 處理訟費時，採取了「宏觀角度」和「整體處理方式」 (global approach)。法官考慮到原告在假冒、違反協議、惡意虛假陳述及糾正註冊方面的成功，以及被告在抗辯版權及註冊商標申索方面的成功。儘管原告在某些方面未能完全成功，且其部分證據被質疑，但法官認為被告方在準備版權申索方面亦有不足，導致審訊時間延長。最終，法官裁定各方應自行承擔其在訴訟中的訟費，以反映各方在不同申索中的得失及訴訟行為。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 法官更改了2005年4月8日的臨時訟費命令，裁定除已作出的訟費命令外，訴訟各方應自行承擔其在訴訟中的訟費。對於被告方要求更改臨時訟費命令的申請，由於被告方在中間禁制令申請的訟費問題上未能成功，法官裁定該申請不作任何訟費命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調在複雜訴訟中，當各方在不同申索中互有勝負時，法庭在處理訟費時可採取「宏觀角度」和「整體處理方式」，而非簡單地按個別申索的結果分配。法庭會考慮各方在訴訟過程中的行為，包括證據準備和披露，作為酌情決定訟費的因素。即使一方在主要申索中勝訴，若其訴訟行為存在問題，仍可能導致其無法獲得全部訟費。 --- ### 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: GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO. LTD and SUN YAT-SEN UNIVERSITY v GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO. LIMITED and CHUNG CHEE KEUNG and EHHAN TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lam J - Date of Judgment: 8 June 2005 ### Factual Background This case involved litigation between the Plaintiffs and the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The Plaintiffs achieved partial success in various claims, including passing off, breach of agreement, and malicious falsehood, and successfully established the personal liability of the 2nd Defendant. However, the Plaintiffs were not entirely successful in their copyright and registered trade mark infringement claims. This judgment primarily deals with the issue of costs, including an application to vary a previous costs order nisi and the handling of costs for numerous interlocutory applications made during the course of the proceedings. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was how to apportion costs among the parties, given the Plaintiffs' mixed success and failure across different claims. The Defendants argued that since the Plaintiffs lost on copyright and registered trade mark claims, and some of their evidence in the passing off claim was discredited, the Plaintiffs should pay a portion of the costs, possibly on an indemnity basis. The Plaintiffs contended that as the overall successful party, they should be awarded costs, emphasizing that the evidence for various claims was intertwined, making a simple apportionment based on individual claim outcomes inappropriate. ### Ratio Decidendi In exercising his discretion on costs, the judge adopted a "bird's eye view" and a "global approach." The judge considered the Plaintiffs' success in passing off, breach of agreement, malicious falsehood, and rectification of registration, as well as the Defendants' success in resisting copyright and registered trade mark claims. Despite the Plaintiffs' partial failures and issues with some of their evidence, the judge also noted deficiencies in the Defendants' preparation of the copyright claim, which prolonged the trial. Ultimately, the judge ruled that each party should bear its own costs in the action, reflecting the mixed results and conduct of the parties throughout the litigation. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The judge varied the costs order nisi of 8 April 2005, ordering that, subject to costs orders already made, each party shall bear its own costs in the action. Regarding the Defendants' application to vary the costs order nisi, no order as to costs was made for that application, as the Defendants were unsuccessful on the costs of the interlocutory injunction application, which was the focus of the argument. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in complex litigation with mixed success across claims, courts may adopt a "global approach" to costs rather than a simple claim-by-claim apportionment. The court will consider the parties' conduct during the litigation, including evidence preparation and disclosure, as factors in exercising its discretion on costs. Even a party largely successful in its main claims may not recover full costs if its conduct in the proceedings is found to be problematic. --- ### 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.