中間申請被駁回後的訟費處理原則？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：IN THE MATTER of The Prudential Enterprise, Limited (HCCW594/1999) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：朱芬齡法官 (Hon Chu J) - 判決日期：2003年11月3日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於呈請人申請委任臨時清盤人 (provisional liquidators)，該申請於2003年4月2日被駁回。法庭當時頒布了一項臨時訟費命令 (order nisi)，要求呈請人支付第一、第二及第四答辯人的訟費。呈請人隨後申請更改該訟費命令，導致本次聆訊。呈請人主要爭議臨時清盤人申請的訟費應「在訴訟中處理」(in the cause)，或保留予審訊法官處理，或由雙方分擔。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，在駁回委任臨時清盤人的申請後，應如何處理該申請所產生的訟費。呈請人認為，由於該申請並非完全不合理，且相關證據將在正式審訊中重複使用，故訟費不應完全由其承擔。第一及第四答辯人則主張，訟費應遵循「訟費隨事件而定」(costs should follow event) 的原則，由敗訴的呈請人支付。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析訟費處理原則時，引用了「訟費隨事件而定」的一般原則，但強調法院在行使酌情權時，應考慮是否存在特殊情況。法官指出，若中間申請並非完全沒有理據，且其證據將在主訴訟中重複使用，則不應將所有訟費判給勝訴方。本案中，法官認為呈請人提出臨時清盤人申請並非完全不合理，且大部分證據將在正式清盤呈請審訊中重複使用，因此不應將所有訟費判予答辯人。然而，為期12天的聆訊費用則應由呈請人承擔，因為這些費用是因其申請而產生。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述訟費原則： - Bushbury Land Rover Limited v. Bushbury Limited [1997] FSR 709：闡明除非申請有不合理之處，否則不應懲罰性地判處訟費。 - Re Elgindata Limited (No.2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207 及 La Chemise Lacoste SA v. Crocodile Garments Limited [2000] 4 HKC 317：重申訟費隨事件而定的原則，除非勝訴方導致訴訟時間顯著增加。 - Steepleglade Limited v. Stratford Investments Limited and Cornelis v. Tetrosyl Ltd [1976] FSR 3：指出若案情和權衡利弊 (balance of convenience) 勢均力敵，訟費應「在訴訟中處理」。 - Kickers International SA v. Paul Kettle Agencies Limited [1990] FSR 436：霍夫曼法官 (Hoffmann J) 解釋了中間申請訟費「在訴訟中處理」的原則，並強調需考慮申請是否合理及是否造成不必要開支。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭部分批准了呈請人更改臨時訟費命令的申請。裁定第一、第二及第四答辯人應獲得為期12天聆訊的訟費，而臨時清盤人申請的其餘訟費則「在訴訟中處理」。此外，呈請人獲得本次更改訟費命令申請的訟費，由第一及第四答辯人支付，並准許委聘兩名大律師。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在中間申請中處理訟費的靈活性，特別是當申請並非完全不合理，且相關證據將在主訴訟中重複使用時。法庭會平衡「訟費隨事件而定」的原則與避免懲罰性判決及避免浪費開支的考量。這對未來涉及中間申請的訟費處理具有指導意義，尤其是在清盤案件中。 --- ### 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 The Prudential Enterprise, Limited (HCCW594/1999) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chu J - Date of Judgment: 3 November 2003 ### Factual Background This case arose from the petitioners' application for the appointment of provisional liquidators, which was dismissed on 2 April 2003. The court then made an order nisi that the costs of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th respondents be paid by the petitioners. The petitioners subsequently applied to vary this costs order, leading to the current hearing. The petitioners primarily argued that the costs of the provisional liquidators application should be "in the cause" of the Petition, or reserved to the trial judge, or split between the parties. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was how to deal with the costs incurred in the application for the appointment of provisional liquidators, which had been dismissed. The petitioners contended that since the application was not wholly unjustified and the evidence would be re-used in the substantive trial, they should not bear all the costs. The 1st and 4th respondents argued that costs should follow the event, meaning the unsuccessful petitioners should pay. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, in analyzing the principles of costs, affirmed the general rule that costs should follow the event but emphasized the court's discretion to make other orders in special circumstances. The judge noted that if an interlocutory application was not entirely without justification and its evidence would be re-used in the main action, not all costs should be awarded to the successful party. In this case, the judge found that the petitioners' application for provisional liquidators was not plainly unjustified, and most of the evidence would be re-used in the substantive winding-up petition. However, the costs of the 12-day hearing were directly attributable to the petitioners' application and should be borne by them. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Several cases were cited to elaborate on costs principles: - Bushbury Land Rover Limited v. Bushbury Limited [1997] FSR 709: Stated that a party is penalized in costs only if there is a measure of unjustifiability beyond mere lack of success. - Re Elgindata Limited (No.2) [1992] 1 WLR 1207 and La Chemise Lacoste SA v. Crocodile Garments Limited [2000] 4 HKC 317: Reaffirmed the general rule that costs follow the event, unless the successful party significantly increased the length of proceedings. - Steepleglade Limited v. Stratford Investments Limited and Cornelis v. Tetrosyl Ltd [1976] FSR 3: Suggested that where merits and balance of convenience are finely balanced, costs should be "in the cause." - Kickers International SA v. Paul Kettle Agencies Limited [1990] FSR 436: Hoffmann J explained the principle of "costs in the cause" for interlocutory relief, considering justification for the motion and unnecessary expense caused. ### Decision & Orders The court partially allowed the petitioners' application to vary the order nisi for costs. It was ordered that the 1st, 2nd, and 4th respondents should have the costs of the 12-day hearing, while the rest of the costs for the provisional liquidators application would be "in the cause" of the Petition. Furthermore, the petitioners were awarded the costs of the current application to vary the costs order, to be paid by the 1st and 4th respondents, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the flexible approach to costs in interlocutory applications, especially when the application is not entirely unjustified and its evidence will be re-used in the main proceedings. The court balances the general principle of "costs follow the event" with considerations of avoiding punitive awards and wasted expenditure. This provides guidance for future costs orders in interlocutory matters, particularly in winding-up cases. --- ### 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.