簡易判決申請是否受欺詐例外條款規限？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 及 李延民所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 v 張才奎 及 李延民 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：周家明法官 (Hon Chow J) - 判決日期：2016年4月26日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及6宗已合併的訴訟，由2,631名中國內地原告提出，他們聲稱實益擁有中國山水投資有限公司（CSI）的456,325股普通股，佔已發行股本約45.63%，目前由第一被告張才奎以受託人身份代為持有。原告聲稱第一被告違反信託，未經他們同意將實益擁有的CSI股份轉入兩個英屬維爾京群島（BVI）酌情信託，導致他們喪失股份的實益權益。原告因此向第一被告索回並轉讓其CSI股份。第一被告則否認存在原告所稱的「香港信託」，並主張原告與被告之間僅為合同關係，且原告已同意設立BVI信託。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於原告提出的簡易判決（summary judgment）申請是否受《高等法院規則》第14號命令第1(2)(b)條所載的「欺詐例外條款」（fraud exception）規限。第一被告抗辯稱，原告的訴訟包含基於「欺詐」指控的申索，因此法院無權作出簡易判決。其次，即使法院有司法管轄權，第一被告亦提出存在可爭辯的議題，特別是原告所聲稱的「香港信託」是否存在。 ### 判決理由 法官根據上訴法庭在Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Limited一案中確立的原則，審視了「欺詐例外條款」的適用範圍。法官認為，判斷欺詐例外條款是否適用時，法院不應僅限於申索陳述書，而應審查所有相關材料，包括後續的訴訟文件和誓章。法官指出，儘管原告的申索陳述書中沒有明確使用「欺詐」或「不誠實」字眼，但其指控第一被告未經同意將股份轉移，意圖剝奪原告的實益權益，實質上構成了一項意圖欺騙的蓄意或罔顧後果的不誠實行為。因此，法院裁定「欺詐例外條款」適用，並無權作出簡易判決。此外，法官亦認為即使有管轄權，關於「香港信託」是否存在的問題也存在可爭辯的議題，需要經審訊才能確定。 ### 引用案例與條文 Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Limited [2016] 1 HKLRD 1016：本案引用並遵循了上訴法庭在此案中就《高等法院規則》第14號命令「欺詐例外條款」適用範圍所確立的原則，特別是關於法院應如何審查相關材料以及「欺詐」的廣泛定義。 ### 裁決與命令 法院駁回了2,277名原告於2015年10月13日提出的傳票申請。法院同時頒布了一項暫准訟費命令，要求該2,277名原告支付第一被告因該傳票申請而產生或導致的訟費，如未能達成協議，則按兩名大律師計算的標準評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在處理簡易判決申請時，對於涉及「欺詐例外條款」的廣泛解釋。即使申索陳述書未明確提及「欺詐」字眼，若實質指控構成意圖欺騙的蓄意或罔顧後果的不誠實行為，法院仍會認為欺詐例外條款適用，從而拒絕簡易判決申請，將案件發付審訊。這強調了在簡易判決程序中，法院會深入審查案件的實質而非僅限於形式上的措辭。 --- ### 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: Employees of China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held in trust by Zhang Cai Kui and Employees of China Shanshui Investment Company Limited held in trust by Li Yan Min v Zhang Cai Kui and Li Yan Min - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 26 April 2016 ### Factual Background This consolidated action involves six separate lawsuits brought by 2,631 individual plaintiffs residing in the PRC. They claim beneficial entitlement to 456,325 ordinary shares in China Shanshui Investment Company Limited (CSI), representing approximately 45.63% of its issued share capital, currently held by the 1st defendant, Zhang Cai Kui, as trustee on their behalf. The plaintiffs allege that the 1st defendant breached trust by transferring their beneficially owned CSI shares into two BVI discretionary trusts without their knowledge or consent, thereby depriving them of their beneficial interests. The plaintiffs seek the return and transfer of their CSI shares from the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant denies the existence of the alleged "Hong Kong Trust" and contends that the relationship was purely contractual, and that the plaintiffs had consented to the creation of the BVI Trusts. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment was precluded by the "fraud exception" under Order 14, rule 1(2)(b) of the Rules of the High Court. The 1st defendant argued that the plaintiffs' action included a claim based on an allegation of fraud, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. Alternatively, even if jurisdiction existed, the 1st defendant contended there were triable issues, particularly regarding the existence of the "Hong Kong Trust" alleged by the plaintiffs. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge applied the principles established by the Court of Appeal in Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Limited regarding the scope of the fraud exception. The judge held that in determining the applicability of the fraud exception, the court is not restricted to the statement of claim but should examine all relevant materials, including subsequent pleadings and affidavits. The judge found that although the words "fraud" or "dishonesty" were not explicitly used in the consolidated statement of claim, the plaintiffs' allegations that the 1st defendant transferred their beneficial interests in CSI shares without their knowledge and consent, with the intention of depriving them of their legal rights, amounted in substance to an allegation of an intentional or reckless dishonest act done with the purpose of deceiving. Therefore, the court concluded that the fraud exception applied, and it had no jurisdiction to grant summary judgment. Furthermore, the judge noted that even if there were jurisdiction, the existence of the "Hong Kong Trust" presented triable issues requiring a full trial. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Limited [2016] 1 HKLRD 1016: This case was cited and followed for the principles governing the scope of the "fraud exception" under Order 14 of the Rules of the High Court, particularly concerning the court's examination of relevant materials and the broad definition of "fraud." ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the summons dated 13 October 2015 filed by the 2,277 plaintiffs. A costs order nisi was also made, directing the 2,277 plaintiffs to pay the 1st defendant's costs of and occasioned by the summons, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Hong Kong courts' broad interpretation of the "fraud exception" when dealing with summary judgment applications. Even if the word "fraud" is not explicitly used in the statement of claim, if the substance of the allegations constitutes an intentional or reckless dishonest act with the purpose of deceiving, the fraud exception will apply, leading to the refusal of summary judgment and the case being sent to trial. This emphasizes that courts will look at the substance over the form of the allegations in summary judgment proceedings. --- ### 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.