訟費命令上訴許可申請？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEE CHUI YING v CHAN YEE LING ELAINE（陳綺玲） - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：Kam KL Cheung - 判決日期：2020年12月30日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗人身傷害訴訟 (personal injuries action)，第二原告（被告的反申索被告）曾提出多項和解建議，包括於2014年10月作出認可付款 (Sanctioned Payment)，以解決被告的反申索 (counterclaim) 並撤回其自身申索。原審法庭在駁回第二原告的申索及被告的反申索後，最初裁定雙方各自承擔訟費。然而，在審閱雙方庭前和解嘗試後，法庭更改了訟費命令 (costs order)，裁定被告須向第二原告支付自2014年11月29日起的訟費，並按彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 評定。被告現申請許可上訴 (leave to appeal) 反對此訟費命令。 ### 核心法律爭議 被告申請許可上訴，主要爭議點在於原審法官就訟費命令的裁決是否存有合理上訴理據 (reasonable prospect of success) 或其他司法公正理由。被告質疑第二原告於2014年10月作出的認可付款是否有效，認為該付款應僅限於解決反申索，而非整個訴訟。被告亦聲稱其在審訊中表現優於和解建議，且其名譽得到昭雪，應被視為勝訴方。此外，被告對第二原告律師事務所的訟費支付情況提出質疑。 ### 判決理由 法官根據《區域法院條例》(District Court Ordinance) 第63A(2)條的原則，審視被告的許可上訴申請。法官認為，上訴成功的合理機會必須是合理而非虛幻的。對於訟費裁決，上訴法庭只會在原審法官行使酌情權 (discretion) 時出現錯誤原則或明顯缺陷時才會干預。法官裁定，第二原告作為反申索的被告，有權根據《區域法院規則》第22號命令第8條作出認可付款。該認可付款的條款清晰明確，旨在解決整個訴訟，包括支付50,000港元予被告並撤回第二原告的申索。法官駁回被告關於其在審訊中「勝訴」的主張，強調人身傷害訴訟並非旨在為任何一方「昭雪名譽」。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回被告就訟費命令提出的許可上訴申請。被告須向第二原告支付本次許可上訴申請的訟費，並發出大律師證明書 (certificate for counsel)。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了認可付款在訟費評估中的重要性，即使在原告和被告的申索均被駁回的情況下，有效的認可付款仍可能影響最終的訟費命令。判決也強調，在人身傷害案件中，法庭的職責並非為當事人「昭雪名譽」，而是根據法律原則處理申索。此外，法官明確指出，反申索的被告有權作出認可付款以解決反申索及相關主申索。 --- ### 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: LEE CHUI YING v CHAN YEE LING ELAINE（陳綺玲） - Court: District Court - Judge: Kam KL Cheung - Date of Judgment: 30 December 2020 ### Factual Background This case originated from a personal injuries action. The 2nd plaintiff (defendant to the counterclaim) had made several settlement offers, including a Sanctioned Payment in October 2014, to resolve the defendant's counterclaim and discontinue her own claim. After dismissing both the 2nd plaintiff's claim and the defendant's counterclaim, the trial court initially ordered no costs. However, upon reviewing the parties' pre-trial settlement attempts, the court varied the costs order, directing the defendant to pay the 2nd plaintiff's costs from 29 November 2014 on an indemnity basis. The defendant now applies for leave to appeal against this costs order. ### Key Legal Issues The defendant's application for leave to appeal primarily disputes whether there is a reasonable prospect of success or some other reason in the interests of justice to challenge the trial judge's costs order. The defendant questioned the validity of the 2nd plaintiff's October 2014 Sanctioned Payment, arguing it should have been confined to settling the counterclaim, not the entire action. The defendant also claimed to have performed better than the settlement offer at trial and that her name was vindicated, thus she should be considered the winner. Furthermore, the defendant raised concerns about the payment of legal costs to the 2nd plaintiff's solicitors' firm. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge considered the defendant's application for leave to appeal based on Section 63A(2) of the District Court Ordinance. The judge affirmed that a reasonable prospect of success must be reasonable and more than fanciful. Regarding costs orders, the Court of Appeal will only interfere if the trial judge exercised discretion on a false principle or in a demonstrably flawed manner. The judge ruled that the 2nd plaintiff, as a defendant to a counterclaim, was entitled to make a sanctioned payment under Order 22 rule 8. The terms of the October 2014 Sanctioned Payment were clear, intending to settle the entire action by paying HK$50,000 to the defendant and discontinuing the 2nd plaintiff's claim. The judge dismissed the defendant's argument that she "won" at trial, emphasizing that a personal injury action is not concerned with vindicating reputation. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed the defendant's application for leave to appeal against the costs order. The defendant was ordered to pay the 2nd plaintiff's costs for this leave to appeal application, with a certificate for counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the significance of sanctioned payments in costs assessment. Even when both plaintiff's and defendant's claims are dismissed, a valid sanctioned payment can influence the final costs order. The judgment also highlights that in personal injury cases, the court's role is not to "vindicate" parties' reputations but to address claims based on legal principles. Furthermore, the judge clarified that a defendant to a counterclaim is entitled to make a sanctioned payment to resolve the counterclaim and the related main claim. --- ### 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.