訟費應否按彌償基準評定？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：梁國安暫委高等法院原訟法庭法官 (Deputy High Court Judge Leung) - 判決日期：2016年3月14日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗涉及家庭成員間的訴訟，原告Lee Sai Nam（父親）與被告Li Shu Chung（Ken）及其他家庭成員之間存在爭議。在2015年12月9日，法庭就案件作出判決，裁定父親、Seline及Yuen Hing勝訴，Ken的反申索被駁回。法庭隨後發出了一項臨時訟費命令 (nisi order as to costs)，裁定父親可獲訟費，Seline及Yuen Hing亦可獲其反申索的訟費。各方有14天時間申請更改此臨時命令。勝訴方隨後申請將訟費按彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 評定，並要求為其代表律師發出三名大律師證明書 (certificate for 3 counsel)。Ken和Joseph則在未有提出交叉申請的情況下，在其反對勝訴方申請的陳詞中，要求更改臨時訟費命令。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點在於：勝訴方是否應獲彌償基準的訟費，以及是否應獲三名大律師證明書。Ken和Joseph則爭議Yuen Hing不應獨立聘請律師，以及Joseph僅為名義被告，不應承擔訟費。法庭需判斷Ken的訴訟行為是否構成濫用程序或藐視法庭，以支持彌償基準的訟費命令。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了授予彌償基準訟費的原則，指出這需要案件具有特殊或不尋常的特徵，例如存在不良動機、惡意訴訟或濫用程序。儘管Ken的訴訟行為存在多項問題，包括遲來的口頭利潤分享協議指控、多次修改申索、證人證供不可信、引入無效證據等，但法庭認為這些行為尚未達到構成藐視法庭或濫用程序的程度，不足以將本案從普通敵意或相互衝突的主張中區分出來，因此拒絕了彌償基準的訟費申請。至於大律師證明書，法庭考慮了案件的重要性、涉及金額及事實爭議的廣泛性，但未被說服需要三名大律師。對於Ken和Joseph未經正式申請而要求更改訟費命令，法庭引用了UDL Holdings Limited & Anor v Leung Yuet Keung & Anor一案的原則，裁定此舉不獲允許。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個關於訟費評定原則的案例： - Overseas Trust Bank Ltd v Coopers & Lybrand (a firm) & Peat Marwick, Mitchell & Co (a firm) & Anor (third parties) [1991] 1 HKLR 177：確立了彌償基準訟費需有特殊或不尋常特徵的原則。 - Choy Yee Chun v Bond Star Development Ltd [1997] HKLRD 1327 (引用 Sung Poo Kee Ltd v Pak Lik Co [1996] 3 HKC 570)：闡明了惡意訴訟或不合理地導致訟費增加的情況可判彌償基準訟費。 - Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No 2) (2004) 7 HKCFAR 114：強調了授予彌償基準訟費的酌情權不應受限，但必須是適當的。 - Huge Dragon Corp Ltd v Lung Mun Oasis (IO) [2014] 3 HKLRD 286：指出不應提起或抗辯的訴訟，但當事人仍不合理地堅持，可判彌償基準訟費。 - Wu Mei Sam v Pui Ying Middle School of Hong Kong [2015] 4 HKLRD 864：提及因個人恩怨而提出的錯誤申索可能構成濫用程序。 - UDL Holdings Limited & Anor v Leung Yuet Keung & Anor, HCA 4409/2002 (2009年1月19日)：確立了更改臨時訟費命令必須通過正式申請的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了勝訴方要求按彌償基準評定訟費的申請，但批准為父親和Seline發出兩名大律師證明書。法庭亦駁回了Ken和Joseph未經正式申請而要求更改臨時訟費命令的請求。最終，臨時訟費命令經修改後，裁定父親和Seline可獲兩名大律師證明書，並成為最終命令。Ken和Joseph須支付本次申請的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港法院在授予彌償基準訟費時的嚴格標準，即使一方的訴訟行為存在多處問題，若未達到構成藐視法庭或濫用程序的程度，法庭仍會謹慎處理。此外，本案強調了更改臨時訟費命令必須遵循正式的申請程序，不能僅在反對陳詞中提出，這對訴訟實踐具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Leung - Date of Judgment: 14 March 2016 ### Factual Background This case arose from a family dispute involving the plaintiff, Lee Sai Nam (the Father), and the defendants, Li Shu Chung (Ken) and other family members. On 9 December 2015, the court delivered a judgment finding in favour of the Father, Seline, and Yuen Hing, and dismissing Ken's counterclaim. A nisi order as to costs was subsequently made, entitling the Father to his costs and Seline and Yuen Hing to their costs for defending the counterclaim. Parties were given 14 days to apply to vary this nisi order. The successful parties then applied for costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis and for a certificate for three counsel. Ken and Joseph, without making a cross-application, sought to vary the nisi costs order in their submissions opposing the successful parties' applications. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were whether the successful parties should be awarded costs on an indemnity basis and whether a certificate for three counsel should be granted. Ken and Joseph argued that Yuen Hing should not have been separately represented and that Joseph was merely a nominal defendant who should not bear costs. The court had to determine if Ken's conduct of the litigation constituted an abuse of process or an affront to the court, justifying an indemnity costs order. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the principles for awarding indemnity costs, noting that such an order requires special or unusual features, such as ulterior motive, malicious prosecution, or abuse of process. Despite several issues with Ken's conduct, including belated allegations of oral profit-sharing agreements, multiple pleading amendments, incredible witness testimony, and the introduction of futile evidence, the court found that these actions did not amount to an affront to the court or an abuse of process sufficient to distinguish the case from ordinary hostility or conflicting assertions. Thus, the application for indemnity costs was refused. Regarding the certificate for counsel, the court considered the case's significance, the value at stake, and the extensive factual dispute but was not persuaded that three counsel were necessary. For Ken and Joseph's attempt to vary the nisi costs order without a formal application, the court, citing UDL Holdings Limited & Anor v Leung Yuet Keung & Anor, ruled that such an approach was impermissible. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents concerning the principles of costs assessment: - Overseas Trust Bank Ltd v Coopers & Lybrand (a firm) & Peat Marwick, Mitchell & Co (a firm) & Anor (third parties) [1991] 1 HKLR 177: Established that indemnity costs require special or unusual features. - Choy Yee Chun v Bond Star Development Ltd [1997] HKLRD 1327 (citing Sung Poo Kee Ltd v Pak Lik Co [1996] 3 HKC 570): Clarified that bad faith litigation or irrationally incurred costs may warrant indemnity costs. - Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No 2) (2004) 7 HKCFAR 114: Emphasized that the discretion to award indemnity costs is unfettered but must be appropriate. - Huge Dragon Corp Ltd v Lung Mun Oasis (IO) [2014] 3 HKLRD 286: Indicated that unreasonably persisting in a claim that should not have been brought or defended could lead to indemnity costs. - Wu Mei Sam v Pui Ying Middle School of Hong Kong [2015] 4 HKLRD 864: Suggested that misconceived claims motivated by personal grudge might constitute an abuse of process. - UDL Holdings Limited & Anor v Leung Yuet Keung & Anor, HCA 4409/2002 (19 January 2009): Established the principle that varying a nisi costs order requires a formal application. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the successful parties' application for costs on an indemnity basis but granted a certificate for two counsel for the Father and Seline. The court also rejected Ken and Joseph's attempt to vary the nisi costs order without a formal application. Ultimately, the nisi costs order was varied to include the certificate for two counsel for the Father and Seline, and then made absolute. Ken and Joseph were ordered to pay the costs of and occasioned by these applications. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the strict standards applied by Hong Kong courts for awarding indemnity costs; even significant issues in a party's litigation conduct may not suffice if they do not constitute an affront to the court or abuse of process. Furthermore, it underscores the procedural requirement for formal applications to vary nisi costs orders, providing important guidance for litigation practice. --- ### 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.