文件披露申請的訟費分配？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Ho Yuen Ki Winnie 及 Moon Valley Foundation Limited 訴 Ho Hung Sun Stanley 及 Sociedade de Turismo E Diversoes De Macau, S.A. - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Andrew Cheung J - 判決日期：2009年11月4日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於原告與第一被告之間的一宗訴訟。2009年4月29日，法庭就第一被告提出的特定文件披露 (specific discovery) 及文件提交 (production of documents) 申請作出判決。法庭僅批准了部分文件披露申請，並就此發出了一項臨時訟費命令 (costs order nisi)，裁定該申請的訟費歸入訴訟費用 (costs in the cause)。至於文件提交申請，法庭沒有作出命令，但裁定訟費由原告支付。第一被告隨後申請更改該臨時訟費命令，要求獲得文件披露申請的70%訟費。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於如何調整先前就文件披露申請作出的臨時訟費命令。第一被告認為他在該申請中取得了實質性成功，即使部分項目被駁回或撤回，因此應獲得大部分訟費。原告則主張第一被告申請的許多項目已被放棄或未獲成功，因此應維持原來的臨時訟費命令。 ### 判決理由 法庭審視了雙方就訟費命令的詳細陳詞，並更仔細地審閱了第一被告文件披露申請的結果。法庭同意第一被告的觀點，即「訟費歸入訴訟費用」未能充分反映其在申請中的成功程度。法庭不僅考慮了命令原告披露的文件數量，還考慮了雙方論點的實質內容。此外，法庭考慮到第一被告為獲得披露命令而不得不訴諸法庭，因為原告一直拒絕披露任何所申請的文件。綜合考慮後，法庭認為將50%的申請訟費判給第一被告會更為公平。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭更改了文件披露申請的臨時訟費命令，裁定原告須向第一被告支付該申請50%的訟費，如未能達成協議則須評定。該經更改的臨時訟費命令現已成為絕對命令 (made absolute)。至於更改臨時訟費命令的申請所產生的訟費，則視為文件披露申請訟費的一部分處理。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調在評估訟費時，法庭不僅會考慮申請中獲批項目的數量，還會考慮申請的實質內容以及一方當事人為獲得必要命令而不得不訴諸法庭的事實。即使部分申請未獲成功，若一方當事人因對方拒絕合作而被迫提出申請並取得實質性成果，仍可能獲得大部分訟費。 --- ### 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: Ho Yuen Ki Winnie and Moon Valley Foundation Limited v Ho Hung Sun Stanley and Sociedade de Turismo E Diversoes De Macau, S.A. - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Andrew Cheung J - Date of Judgment: 4 November 2009 ### Factual Background This case arose from litigation between the plaintiffs and the first defendant. On 29 April 2009, the Court delivered judgment on the first defendant's applications for specific discovery and production of documents. The Court granted only part of the discovery application and made a costs order nisi that the costs of that application be in the cause. For the production application, no order was made, save that costs be to the plaintiffs in any event. The first defendant subsequently applied to vary the costs order nisi, seeking 70% of the costs for the discovery application. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was how to vary the previous costs order nisi concerning the specific discovery application. The first defendant contended that he had been substantially successful in his application, despite some items being refused or abandoned, and should therefore receive a significant portion of the costs. The plaintiffs argued that many of the first defendant's applied items had been abandoned or were unsuccessful, and thus the original costs order nisi should be maintained. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court considered the detailed arguments from both parties regarding the costs order and reviewed the outcome of the first defendant's discovery application more closely. The Court agreed with the first defendant that "costs in the cause" did not fully reflect the extent of his success. The Court considered not only the number of documents ordered to be disclosed but also the substance of the parties' arguments. Furthermore, the Court took into account that the first defendant had to come to court to obtain the discovery order because the plaintiffs had steadfastly refused to make discovery of any of the applied documents. Considering all factors, the Court found that awarding 50% of the application costs to the first defendant would be fairer. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The costs order nisi for the discovery application was varied to state that 50% of the application costs be paid by the plaintiffs to the first defendant, to be taxed if not agreed. The varied costs order nisi was made absolute. The costs of the application to vary the costs order nisi were to be regarded as part of the discovery application costs and dealt with accordingly. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in assessing costs, the court considers not only the number of items granted in an application but also the substance of the application and the fact that a party was compelled to apply due to the other party's refusal to cooperate. A party may still be awarded a substantial portion of costs even if some parts of their application were unsuccessful, provided they achieved significant results after being forced to litigate. --- ### 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.