臨時訟費命令逾期後能否更改？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TANG MAN KIT and FOO TAK CHING v HIP HING TIMBER COMPANY LIMITED - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：張澤祐法官、楊振權法官、鍾嘉賢法官 - 判決日期：2006年6月8日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於被告（協興木業有限公司）申請更改一項訟費命令。上訴法庭於2005年5月13日裁定原告（TANG MAN KIT 及 FOO TAK CHING，以華人模範鄉經理身份起訴）上訴得直，並頒布臨時訟費命令（costs nisi order），判原告可獲上訴及原審訟費。根據《高等法院規則》第42號命令第5B(6)條，除非在14天內申請更改，否則臨時命令將成為最終命令（absolute order）。被告未能在14天內提出申請，而是在59天後才提出延長時間及更改訟費命令的申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，上訴法庭是否有司法管轄權（jurisdiction）延長更改臨時訟費命令的申請時限，即使該臨時命令已在規則規定的14天後成為最終命令。原告方認為，一旦14天期限屆滿，臨時命令即成為最終命令，法庭便失去更改該命令的權力。被告方則依賴先例《Ma Wan Farming Limited v. the Chief Executive in Council and another (No. 2)》指出法庭有權延長時限。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁決理由（ratio decidendi）主要基於遵循先例《Ma Wan Farming Limited v. the Chief Executive in Council and another (No. 2)》，該案確立了法庭根據《高等法院規則》第3號命令第5條及第59號命令第10條（固有司法管轄權）有權延長更改臨時訟費命令的申請時限。即使臨時命令已成為最終命令，只要在規定或延長的時限內提出申請，該命令就不會成為最終命令。法庭認為，第3號命令第5(1)條明確允許法庭延長任何法規或命令規定的行為時限，且第5(2)條允許在時限屆滿後提出延長申請。因此，法庭保留延長時限的司法管轄權。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《Ma Wan Farming Limited v. the Chief Executive in Council and another (No. 2) [1998] 2 HKLRD 314》，該案確立了法庭有權延長更改臨時訟費命令的申請時限。此外，法庭還引用了《Manley Estates Ltd. v. Benedek [1941] 1 All ER 248》及《Regina v. Bloomsbury & Marylebone County Court ex parte Villerwest Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 362》以支持其關於延長時限的司法管轄權的論點。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回被告延長時間及更改訟費命令的申請。法庭認為被告未能為延誤提供充分理由，且更改訟費命令的實質理據不足。因此，被告須支付原告的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法院在處理臨時訟費命令時，即使規定的申請更改時限已過，仍有權根據《高等法院規則》第3號命令第5條延長該時限。然而，申請人必須提供充分的延誤理由及更改命令的實質理據。鍾嘉賢法官提出了異議意見，認為若無具約束力先例，他會得出不同結論，強調規則的字面解釋及訴訟終局性原則的重要性。 --- ### 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: TANG MAN KIT and FOO TAK CHING v HIP HING TIMBER COMPANY LIMITED - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Cheung JA, Hon Yeung JA, Hon Chung J - Date of Judgment: 8 June 2006 ### Factual Background This case concerns the defendant's (Hip Hing Timber Company Limited) application to vary a costs order. The Court of Appeal had, on 13 May 2005, allowed the plaintiffs' (Tang Man Kit and Foo Tak Ching, suing as Managers of Wah Yan Mo Fan Heung) appeal and made a costs nisi order, entitling the plaintiffs to costs of the appeal and below. Under Order 42, Rule 5B(6) of the Rules of High Court, a nisi order becomes absolute unless an application to vary it is made within 14 days. The defendant failed to apply within 14 days, making their application to extend time and vary the costs order 59 days later. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to extend the time for an application to vary a costs nisi order, even after the 14-day period prescribed by the rules had passed and the order had become absolute. The plaintiffs argued that once the 14-day period expired, the order became absolute, and the court lost its power to vary it. The defendant relied on the precedent of Ma Wan Farming Limited to assert the court's power to extend time. ### Ratio Decidendi The ratio decidendi was primarily based on following the precedent of Ma Wan Farming Limited v. the Chief Executive in Council and another (No. 2), which established that the court has jurisdiction under Order 3, Rule 5 and Order 59, Rule 10 (inherent jurisdiction) to extend the time for applying to vary a costs nisi order. The court held that a nisi order would not become absolute if an application to vary it was made within the prescribed or extended time. Order 3, Rule 5(1) explicitly allows the court to extend the period for doing any act required by the rules, and Rule 5(2) permits such an application even after the period has expired. Therefore, the court retained jurisdiction to extend time. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedent cited was Ma Wan Farming Limited v. the Chief Executive in Council and another (No. 2) [1998] 2 HKLRD 314, which held that the court has jurisdiction to extend time for varying a costs nisi order. Additionally, Manley Estates Ltd. v. Benedek [1941] 1 All ER 248 and Regina v. Bloomsbury & Marylebone County Court ex parte Villerwest Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 362 were cited to support the court's reasoning on the jurisdiction to extend time. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the defendant's application to extend time and vary the costs order. The court found that the defendant had not provided a satisfactory reason for the delay and that there was no justifiable ground to vary the costs order on its merits. Consequently, the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiffs' costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that Hong Kong courts retain jurisdiction to extend the time for varying a costs nisi order under Order 3, Rule 5 of the Rules of High Court, even if the prescribed 14-day period has elapsed. However, applicants must provide justifiable reasons for the delay and demonstrate merits for varying the order. Hon Chung J delivered a dissenting opinion, stating that without binding authority, he would have reached a different conclusion, emphasizing the literal interpretation of the rule and the principle of finality in litigation. --- ### 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.