遺產管理人訴訟訟費是否由遺產彌償？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TO PUI KUI, the Administratrix of the estate of NG PO SUM, deceased v NG KWOK PIU and Others - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、關淑馨上訴法官、鮑晏明上訴法官 - 判決日期：2015年1月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及已故人士遺產的訴訟，原告（遺產管理人）代表遺產向多名被告提出申索。上訴法庭在2014年8月21日已就實體爭議作出判決，並發出臨時訟費命令，要求原告向部分勝訴被告支付訟費。隨後，雙方就訟費問題提出傳票，包括勝訴被告要求原告個人支付訟費，以及原告要求遺產彌償其所有訟費。此外，第六被告申請上訴至終審法院，主要基於爭議標的價值超過法定限額、涉及重大公眾重要性問題，或根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條的其他理由。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要處理兩個法律問題：第一，原告作為遺產管理人，其因訴訟而產生的訟費應由其個人承擔還是由遺產彌償？這涉及「Beddoe申請」原則的適用性。第二，第六被告申請上訴至終審法院的理據是否成立，包括爭議標的價值是否超過法定限額，以及是否涉及重大公眾重要性問題。第六被告亦提出新的法律論點，即舉證責任問題，但此論點未曾在原審或上訴階段提出。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，儘管原告以遺產管理人身份行事，但由於訴訟實質上是家族成員之間的爭議，且原告在推進申索和上訴時有其個人利益，因此駁回其要求遺產彌償訟費的申請。法庭引用了 Re Lee Shuk Yee 案的原則，即訟費命令應針對原告個人作出。關於上訴至終審法院的申請，法庭根據 Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen 案的原則，認為爭議股份的價值未能明確量化超過法定限額，且第六被告提出的新論點不符合上訴法庭的既定慣例，即未經原審或上訴法庭審理的新論點不予受理。法庭亦認為第六被告的申請構成濫用程序，因其缺乏訴訟資格 (locus standi)。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例： - Re Lee Shuk Yee [2005] 4 HKC 318 (affirmed on appeal in [2006] 3 HKC 396)：確立了遺產管理人即使有彌償權，訟費命令仍應針對其個人作出。 - Chan Gordon v Lee Wai Hing (No 2) [2011] 2 HKLRD 1029：關於沒有Beddoe申請並非致命性，法院應考慮若有申請是否會獲批。 - Evans v Evans [1986] 1 WLR 101：關於受益人均為成年且有行為能力時，除非有足夠的抗衡因素，否則不應由遺產承擔訴訟費用。 - Ip Cheung Kwok v Sin Hua Bank Trustee Ltd CACV 79 of 1988, 28 Nov 1990：關於受託人或遺產管理人未獲Beddoe命令前，須證明其訟費是合理產生。 - In re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547：闡明受託人僅能就合理且誠實產生的費用獲得彌償。 - Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen (2011) 14 HKCFAR 798：確立了判斷上訴至終審法院的「當然權利」條款是否適用時，應以申索價值而非財產價值為準，且該價值須明確量化。 - Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v Texan Management Ltd FAMVs 5, 6, 7 & 8 of 2014, 14 Oct 2014：應用了Chinachem案的原則，指出股份價值難以量化時不適用「當然權利」條款。 - Kung Ming Tak Tong Co Ltd v Park Solid Enterprises Ltd CACV 227 of 2005, 26 June 2007：確立了上訴法庭不授予就未經原審或上訴法庭審理的新論點上訴的許可。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回原告要求遺產彌償其訟費的申請，並確認原訟費命令，即原告須向勝訴被告支付訟費。法庭指示就原訟費的分配問題舉行簡短聆訊。此外，法庭駁回第六被告上訴至終審法院的申請，並裁定其申請構成濫用程序，命令第六被告以彌償基準支付勝訴被告的訟費，金額定為港幣201,088元。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了遺產管理人訴訟中訟費承擔的原則，強調即使以遺產管理人身份行事，若訴訟實質為家族內部爭議且涉及個人利益，則難以獲得遺產彌償。同時，本案也明確了上訴至終審法院的「當然權利」條款的嚴格適用條件，特別是關於爭議標的價值必須明確量化。此外，法庭強調了上訴程序中不應提出未經下級法院審理的新論點，並可將此類行為視為濫用程序。 --- ### 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: TO PUI KUI, the Administratrix of the estate of NG PO SUM, deceased v NG KWOK PIU and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Barma JJA - Date of Judgment: 29 January 2015 ### Factual Background This case concerns litigation involving a deceased's estate, where the plaintiff (administratrix) brought claims against several defendants on behalf of the estate. The Court of Appeal had previously delivered a substantive judgment on 21 August 2014, issuing a costs order nisi that the plaintiff should pay the costs of certain successful defendants. Subsequently, summonses were filed regarding costs: the successful defendants sought personal costs from the plaintiff, while the plaintiff sought indemnification from the estate for all costs incurred. Additionally, the 6th defendant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, primarily on grounds that the subject matter's value exceeded the statutory limit, that questions of great general or public importance were raised, or under the 'otherwise' limb of section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Key Legal Issues This judgment primarily addresses two legal issues: Firstly, whether the costs incurred by the plaintiff, as administratrix, should be borne personally or indemnified by the estate, involving the applicability of the 'Beddoe application' principle. Secondly, whether the 6th defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was valid, including whether the subject matter's value exceeded the statutory limit and if questions of great general or public importance were raised. The 6th defendant also introduced new legal arguments concerning the burden of proof, which had not been raised at trial or during the appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court ruled that despite the plaintiff acting as administratrix, the litigation was essentially a dispute between family members, and the plaintiff had personal interests in pursuing the claims and appeals. Therefore, her application for indemnification from the estate was dismissed. The Court cited the principle from Re Lee Shuk Yee that costs orders should be made against the plaintiff personally. Regarding the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, the Court, applying the principles from Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen, found that the value of the disputed shares could not be clearly quantified to exceed the statutory limit. Furthermore, the 6th defendant's new points did not conform to the established practice of the Court of Appeal, which does not grant leave for new points not raised in lower courts. The Court also found the 6th defendant's application to be an abuse of process due to lack of locus standi. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases were cited: - Re Lee Shuk Yee [2005] 4 HKC 318 (affirmed on appeal in [2006] 3 HKC 396): Established that a costs order should be made against the administratrix personally, irrespective of indemnity. - Chan Gordon v Lee Wai Hing (No 2) [2011] 2 HKLRD 1029: Held that the absence of a Beddoe application is not fatal, and the court should consider if leave would have been granted notionally. - Evans v Evans [1986] 1 WLR 101: Concerned the principle that where beneficiaries are adult and sui juris, strong countervailing considerations are needed for the estate to bear litigation costs. - Ip Cheung Kwok v Sin Hua Bank Trustee Ltd CACV 79 of 1988, 28 Nov 1990: Addressed that a trustee or personal representative without a Beddoe order must show costs were properly incurred. - In re Beddoe [1893] 1 Ch 547: Clarified that a trustee can only be indemnified for costs, charges, and expenses properly (reasonably and honestly) incurred. - Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen (2011) 14 HKCFAR 798: Set out the approach for determining if the 'as of right' provision for CFA appeals is engaged, focusing on the quantifiable value of the claim. - Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co Ltd v Texan Management Ltd FAMVs 5, 6, 7 & 8 of 2014, 14 Oct 2014: Applied the Chinachem principle, noting that 'as of right' procedure does not cover cases where share value is difficult to quantify. - Kung Ming Tak Tong Co Ltd v Park Solid Enterprises Ltd CACV 227 of 2005, 26 June 2007: Established the practice that leave to appeal will not be granted for new points not raised in lower courts. ### Decision & Orders The Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for indemnification of costs from the estate and confirmed the original costs order that the plaintiff must pay the successful defendants' costs. A short hearing was directed for the apportionment of costs below. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the 6th defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, ruling it an abuse of process, and ordered the 6th defendant to pay the successful defendants' costs on an indemnity basis, fixed at HK$201,088. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates the principles governing costs in estate litigation, emphasizing that an administratrix may not be indemnified by the estate if the litigation is essentially a family dispute involving personal interests. It also clarifies the strict conditions for the 'as of right' provision for appealing to the Court of Final Appeal, particularly regarding the clear quantification of the subject matter's value. Additionally, the Court highlighted that new points not raised in lower courts should not be introduced at the appeal stage, and such actions may constitute an abuse of process. --- ### 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.