法院能否限制公眾查閱原訴法律程序？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED (In Liquidation) 及 AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED (In Liquidation) 相關事宜 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：關淑馨法官 (Hon. Kwan J.) - 判決日期：2005年11月4日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩家清盤中的公司，KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED 及 AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED，其清盤人提出單方面申請 (ex-parte application)，要求根據《公司條例》(Companies Ordinance, Cap. 32) 第199(3)及200(3)條，發出四份保護性傳訊令狀 (protective writs) 以針對不同被告。清盤人同時尋求法院指示，將訴訟各方名稱匿名化為「A」和「B」，並將案件登記冊、檔案及相關文件保密，以保護機密資訊。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於法院是否有司法管轄權 (jurisdiction)，限制公眾根據《高等法院規則》(Rules of the High Court) 第63號命令第4(1)條查閱原訴法律程序 (originating process) 的權利。清盤人主張法院的固有司法管轄權 (inherent jurisdiction) 允許其在適當情況下限制查閱權，以確保保密性。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，法院有固有司法管轄權來規範其訴訟程序，以確保當事人身份不被識別。儘管《高等法院規則》第63號命令第4(1)條賦予公眾查閱原訴法律程序的權利，但法官裁定這並非絕對權利。為確保其他保密指示的有效性，法院的固有司法管轄權可在適當情況下被援引，以限制對傳訊令狀及申索背書 (endorsement of claim) 的查閱權。法官參考了相關案例，並認為在當前情況下行使酌情權是正確和適當的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了數個案例，包括 Re The Takeovers and Mergers Panel [1996] 3 HKC 379，該案確認法院有固有司法管轄權確保當事人身份不被識別。此外，法官審視了 Hunsworth v Attorney General [1996] 3 HKC 519 及 Hunsworth v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Another [1996] 2 HKLR 446 中關於查閱權並非絕對的意見，儘管這些意見被視為附帶意見 (obiter dicta)。法官亦考慮了 A Co v B Co [2002] 3 HKLRD 111，但認為該案未討論《高等法院規則》第63號命令第4(1)條，故對本案司法管轄權問題無直接幫助。 ### 裁決與命令 法院批准了清盤人提出的單方面申請，允許發出四份保護性傳訊令狀，並同意將訴訟各方名稱匿名化、將案件登記冊、檔案及相關文件保密，以及將支持誓章、陳詞、命令及聆訊記錄密封，限制公眾查閱。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在特殊情況下，可運用其固有司法管轄權限制公眾查閱原訴法律程序的權利，即使《高等法院規則》第63號命令第4(1)條賦予了查閱權。這對於涉及敏感資訊或需要保護當事人身份的清盤案件或其他訴訟具有重要意義，確保保密措施的有效性。 --- ### 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: In the Matter of KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED (In Liquidation) and In the Matter of AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED (In Liquidation) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon. Kwan J. - Date of Judgment: 4 November 2005 ### Factual Background This case involved two companies in liquidation, KONG WAH HOLDINGS LIMITED and AKAI HOLDINGS LIMITED. Their liquidators made an ex-parte application seeking leave to issue four protective writs against various groups of defendants under sections 199(3) and 200(3) of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32). The liquidators also sought directions from the court to anonymize the parties as "A" and "B," keep the register of actions, file, and related documents confidential, and seal supporting affidavits and hearing transcripts to protect sensitive information. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the court had jurisdiction to restrict the public's right of access to originating processes, as conferred by Order 63 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court. The liquidators argued that the court's inherent jurisdiction allowed it to restrict access in appropriate circumstances to ensure confidentiality. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge held that the court has inherent jurisdiction to regulate its own process to ensure that a party is not identified. While Order 63 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court grants public access to originating processes, the judge determined that this is not an absolute right. To ensure the effectiveness of other confidentiality directions, the court's inherent jurisdiction can be invoked in appropriate situations to restrict access to the writ and endorsement of claim. The judge referred to relevant cases and found it right and proper to exercise discretion in this instance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Re The Takeovers and Mergers Panel [1996] 3 HKC 379, which affirmed the court's inherent jurisdiction to ensure party anonymity. The judge also considered the obiter dicta in Hunsworth v Attorney General [1996] 3 HKC 519 and Hunsworth v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Another [1996] 2 HKLR 446 regarding the non-absolute nature of the right of access. A Co v B Co [2002] 3 HKLRD 111 was also considered, but the judge found it not directly helpful as it did not discuss Order 63 rule 4(1). ### Decision & Orders The court granted the ex-parte application by the liquidators, allowing the issuance of four protective writs. It also approved the anonymization of parties, the confidentiality of the register and file, and the sealing of supporting affidavits, submissions, orders, and hearing transcripts, thereby restricting public access. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that Hong Kong courts, in exceptional circumstances, can exercise their inherent jurisdiction to restrict public access to originating processes, even when Order 63 rule 4(1) of the Rules of the High Court grants such access. This is significant for liquidation cases and other proceedings involving sensitive information or requiring the protection of party identities, ensuring the efficacy of confidentiality measures. --- ### 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.