訟費命令是否需要獨立上訴許可？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：WANG DIN SHIN v NINA KUNG alias NINA T H WANG - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權法官、袁家寧法官、黃志明法官 - 判決日期：2005年6月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於被告（上訴人）對原審法官的判決（主上訴）及其訟費命令（訟費上訴）提出上訴。上訴法庭於2004年6月28日駁回主上訴。由於時間限制，訟費上訴當時未處理，法庭允許雙方恢復訟費上訴並就主上訴的訟費提出申請。2004年11月17日，上訴法庭批准被告就主上訴的駁回向終審法院提出上訴。被告現根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條的「或其他方式」理由，申請就訟費命令向終審法院提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 被告申請許可，就上訴法庭的訟費命令向終審法院提出上訴。被告的主要論點是，由於主上訴和訟費上訴有不同的上訴編號，且先前獲批的上訴許可未涵蓋訟費命令，若主上訴成功，被告將無法要求終審法院更改訟費命令，這對被告不公平。原告對此申請沒有提出反對。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析指出，《香港終審法院條例》第17(1)條明確規定，終審法院在處理上訴時，可以確認、推翻或更改原審法庭的裁決，或就訟費作出其認為合適的命令。由於被告已獲准就主上訴的駁回提出上訴，終審法院在處理該上訴時，有權就訟費作出任何適當的命令。因此，訟費命令是否具有獨立的上訴編號並不重要，被告的擔憂是沒有根據的。法庭認為，就訟費命令提出上訴的許可並無必要。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回被告就訟費命令向終審法院提出上訴的申請。儘管原告沒有提出反對，法庭認為沒有理由批准該申請。被告須支付本次申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了終審法院在處理上訴時，其固有權力涵蓋對訟費命令的處理，即使訟費命令與主上訴有不同的上訴編號，也無需獨立申請上訴許可。這對理解終審法院的權限及其對下級法院訟費命令的審查範圍具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: WANG DIN SHIN v NINA KUNG alias NINA T H WANG - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung JA, Hon Yuen JA, Hon Wang J - Date of Judgment: 29 June 2005 ### Factual Background This case concerns an appeal by the defendant (appellant) against the judgment of the trial judge (the Main Appeal) and the costs order made (the Costs Appeal). The Court of Appeal dismissed the Main Appeal on 28 June 2004. Due to time constraints, the Costs Appeal was not dealt with then, and the parties were given liberty to restore it and apply for costs of the Main Appeal. On 17 November 2004, the Court of Appeal granted leave to the defendant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the dismissal of the Main Appeal. The defendant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the Costs Orders under the "or otherwise" ground in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Key Legal Issues The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal regarding the Court of Appeal's costs orders. The defendant's main argument was that since the Main Appeal and the Costs Appeal had different appeal numbers, and the previously granted leave to appeal did not extend to the costs orders, it would be unfair if, in the event of success in the Main Appeal, she could not seek an order from the Court of Final Appeal to vary the costs orders. The plaintiff raised no objection to this application. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed that Section 17(1) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance expressly provides that the Court of Final Appeal, when dealing with an appeal, may confirm, reverse, or vary the decision of the court from which the appeal lies, or may make such other order in the matter, including any order as to costs, as it thinks fit. Since the defendant had already obtained leave to appeal against the dismissal of the Main Appeal, the Court of Final Appeal, in dealing with that appeal, has the power to make any appropriate order as to costs. Therefore, the fact that the costs orders had a separate appeal number was not materially significant, and the defendant's concern was unfounded. The court concluded that leave to appeal against the costs orders was not necessary. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the costs orders. Despite the plaintiff raising no objection, the court found no basis to grant the order sought. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of this application. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that the Court of Final Appeal's inherent power to deal with costs orders extends to situations where such orders have separate appeal numbers from the main appeal, negating the need for separate leave to appeal. This provides clarity on the scope of the CFA's jurisdiction over costs and its review of lower court costs orders. --- ### 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.