名義被告訟費誰付？？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：WADDINGTON LIMITED v CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS 及 另二人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Barma J - 判決日期：2006年3月7日 ### 案情摘要 原告 Waddington Limited 代表其自身及 Playmates Holdings Limited 的所有其他股東（第一及第二被告除外），對第一被告 Chan Chun Hoo Thomas 及第二被告 T G C Investments Limited（前稱 Chansam Investments Limited）提出訴訟。本案涉及原告申請更改原訟法庭於2005年4月29日就第一被告申請剔除申索及原告申請確立表面證據成立的訟費臨時命令 (costs order nisi)。此外，第三被告 Playmates Holdings Limited 亦申請更改訟費臨時命令。原告亦申請修訂其申索陳述書 (Statement of Claim)。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議包括：第一，應否更改原告須支付第一及第二被告訟費的臨時命令，以及第三被告的訟費應由誰承擔。第二，原告申請修訂申索陳述書，將 Playmates Holdings Limited 及 Playmates International Limited 列為第三及第四被告是否恰當。第三，原告就第一被告的控制權及不當行為的指控是否已充分詳述。 ### 判決理由 法官在處理訟費臨時命令時，引用《高等法院規則》 (Rules of the High Court) 第62號命令第3(2)條及 Re Elgindata Limited (No. 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207 案例，強調訟費應隨訴訟結果而定。由於第一被告成功剔除申索，故其訟費應由原告支付。對於第三被告，法官認為其作為名義方 (nominal party) 仍有權出席聆訊並提交有助法庭的資料，故其訟費應由原告支付。至於修訂申索陳述書，法官認為在多重衍生訴訟 (multiple derivative action) 中，若中間控股公司並無被指控不當行為或未有尋求濟助，則不應將其列為訴訟方。法官亦裁定，對控制權的指控可從股權結構推斷，並認為原告的申索陳述書已足夠詳盡，但部分內容需進一步修訂。 ### 引用案例與條文 Re Elgindata Limited (No. 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207：此案例確立了訟費應隨訴訟結果而定的原則，即使勝訴方在某些議題上未能成功，除非導致訴訟時間或成本顯著增加，否則不應剝奪其訟費。若勝訴方不當或不合理地提出議題，則可能被命令支付敗訴方的部分或全部訟費。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭維持原告須支付第一被告訟費的臨時命令，並將第二被告從訟費命令中刪除。法庭批准第三被告的申請，命令原告支付第三被告因本申請而產生的訟費。法庭不允許將 Playmates Holdings Limited 和 Playmates International Limited 列為被告，並指示原告進一步修訂申索陳述書中關於指控詳情的部分。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了訟費應隨訴訟結果而定的原則，並闡明了在衍生訴訟中，名義被告方在合理情況下有權獲得訟費。此外，判決明確指出，在多重衍生訴訟中，若中間控股公司未被指控不當行為或未尋求濟助，則不應將其列為訴訟方，這對未來處理類似複雜公司訴訟的程序有指導意義。 --- ### 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 2 others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Barma J - Date of Judgment: 7 March 2006 ### Factual Background The Plaintiff, Waddington Limited, suing on behalf of itself and other shareholders in Playmates Holdings Limited (excluding the 1st and 2nd Defendants), brought an action against the 1st Defendant, Chan Chun Hoo Thomas, and the 2nd Defendant, T G C Investments Limited (formerly Chansam Investments Limited). This judgment concerns the Plaintiff's application to vary a costs order nisi made on 29 April 2005 regarding the 1st Defendant's application to strike out the claim and the Plaintiff's application for a prima facie case determination. Additionally, the 3rd Defendant, Playmates Holdings Limited, also applied to vary the costs order nisi. The Plaintiff also sought leave to amend its Statement of Claim. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues included: firstly, whether the costs order nisi, requiring the Plaintiff to pay the 1st and 2nd Defendants' costs, should be varied, and who should bear the 3rd Defendant's costs. Secondly, whether the Plaintiff's proposed amendment to join Playmates Holdings Limited and Playmates International Limited as 3rd and 4th Defendants was appropriate. Thirdly, whether the Plaintiff's allegations regarding the 1st Defendant's control and wrongdoing were sufficiently particularized. ### Ratio Decidendi In addressing the costs order nisi, the judge referred to Order 62 rule 3(2) of the Rules of the High Court and Re Elgindata Limited (No. 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207, emphasizing that costs should follow the event. Since the 1st Defendant was successful in striking out the claim, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay his costs. For the 3rd Defendant, the judge found that as a nominal party, it was entitled to attend and provide helpful information, thus its costs should be borne by the Plaintiff. Regarding the amendment of the Statement of Claim, the judge held that in a multiple derivative action, intermediate holding companies should not be joined if no wrongdoing is alleged against them and no relief is sought on their behalf. The judge also ruled that allegations of control could be inferred from shareholding structure and found the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim largely sufficient, but required further specific amendments. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Re Elgindata Limited (No. 2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207: This case established the principle that costs should follow the event. A successful party's costs should not be disallowed merely because they failed on some issues, unless it significantly increased the length or cost of proceedings. If a successful party improperly or unreasonably raised issues, they might be ordered to pay the unsuccessful party's costs. ### Decision & Orders The court upheld the costs order nisi for the Plaintiff to pay the 1st Defendant's costs, deleting the 2nd Defendant from the order. The 3rd Defendant's application was granted, ordering the Plaintiff to pay the 3rd Defendant's costs for the application. The court disallowed the joinder of Playmates Holdings Limited and Playmates International Limited as defendants and directed the Plaintiff to further amend specific parts of the Statement of Claim concerning the particulars of allegations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principle that costs follow the event and clarifies that nominal defendants in derivative actions are entitled to costs under reasonable circumstances. Furthermore, it specifies that intermediate holding companies should not be joined as parties in multiple derivative actions if no wrongdoing is alleged against them or no relief is sought on their behalf, providing guidance for complex corporate litigation procedures. --- ### 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.