訟費下調百分比的決定？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：2016年3月2日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於高等法院原訟法庭的一宗訴訟，上訴法庭在2015年1月29日及2015年9月24日已就實體爭議作出判決。在2015年9月24日的判決中，上訴法庭裁定勝訴的被告不應獲得原訟法庭訴訟的全部訟費，理由是該判決第21(c)至(e)段所列事項。法庭隨後邀請各方就全球評估（global assessment）下調訟費的百分比提交進一步陳詞。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，鑑於上訴法庭先前判決中指出的特定事項，原訟法庭訴訟中勝訴被告應獲判的訟費應下調多少百分比。勝訴被告的律師提出下調不超過15%，而原告及敗訴被告的律師則認為應下調35%至40%。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭在考慮了各方大律師的陳詞後，儘管未曾主審原審案件，但根據其最佳判斷，認為基於先前判決中提及的事項，應剝奪勝訴被告25%的原訟法庭訴訟訟費。法庭強調，此決定是基於對案件整體情況的全球評估，並考慮到其在2015年1月29日判決中指出的特定理由。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定，原告及敗訴被告須支付勝訴被告在原訟法庭訴訟中75%的訟費。該訟費如未能達成協議，將會進行評定（taxed），並發出聘用三名大律師的證明書（certificate for 3 counsel）。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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: 2 March 2016 ### Factual Background This case originated from an action in the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeal had previously delivered substantive judgments on 29 January 2015 and 24 September 2015. In the 24 September 2015 judgment, the Court of Appeal ruled that the successful defendants should not be awarded the full costs of the action below, citing reasons detailed in paragraphs 21(c) to (e) of its earlier judgment. The court then invited further submissions on the percentage reduction in a global assessment of costs. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was to determine the appropriate percentage reduction in the costs awarded to the successful defendants in the Court of First Instance action, given the specific matters highlighted in the Court of Appeal's previous judgments. Counsel for the successful defendants proposed a reduction not exceeding 15%, while counsel for the plaintiff and unsuccessful defendants argued for a discount of 35-40%. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal, after considering submissions from counsel, and despite not having presided over the original trial, concluded that a 25% deprivation of the successful defendants' costs in the action below was appropriate. This decision was based on a global assessment of the case and the specific reasons outlined in its 29 January 2015 judgment, doing the best it could with the assistance of counsel. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal ordered the plaintiff and the unsuccessful defendants to pay 75% of the successful defendants' costs in the action below. These costs are to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for 3 counsel. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.