非訴訟方訟費命令的管轄權與程序濫用？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED 訴 WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 及 另一宗案件 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：歐陽惠榮法官 (Hon Au-Yeung J) - 判決日期：2016年7月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三宗訴訟（「該等訴訟」）及三宗上訴（「該等上訴」），申請人（「華藝各方」）是根據原訟法庭及上訴法庭的訟費命令而獲得訟費的當事人。被申請人李先生（「Mr Lee」）是Big Island Construction (HK) Limited（「BIC」）的董事。華藝各方申請將Mr Lee列為非訴訟方，以便根據《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance, HCO) 第52A條及《高等法院規則》(Rules of the High Court, RHC) 第62號命令第6A條向其追討訟費。華藝各方聲稱Mr Lee是BIC的唯一出資人及實際控制人，並從訴訟中獲益。Mr Lee則以延誤、先前申請失敗、未申請訟費保證金以及原訟法庭無權處理上訴訟費為由反對。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於華藝各方申請將Mr Lee列為非訴訟方以追討訟費，是否應在第一階段被駁回。Mr Lee提出四項反對理由：(1) 申請存在嚴重且未解釋的延誤，構成程序濫用；(2) 先前針對Mr Lee的類似申請已失敗且未上訴；(3) 華藝各方未能在適當時候申請訟費保證金；(4) 原訟法庭無權處理上訴法庭的訟費命令。法庭需判斷這些反對理由是否足以在第一階段駁回申請。 ### 判決理由 法庭根據《高等法院條例》第52A條及《高等法院規則》第62號命令第6A條，審視了將非訴訟方列為當事人以追討訟費的兩階段程序。在第一階段，法庭只會在申請明顯構成程序濫用時才駁回。法庭認為，雖然存在延誤、先前申請失敗及未申請訟費保證金等情況，但這些不足以在第一階段認定申請構成程序濫用。延誤本身不足以構成程序濫用，除非非訴訟方能證明因此遭受實質損害。至於管轄權問題，法庭裁定原訟法庭無權處理上訴法庭的訟費命令，因為《高等法院條例》第52A條僅賦予法院處理其自身程序所產生訟費的權力。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述非訴訟方訟費命令的法律原則： - Sun Focus Investment Ltd v Tang Shing Bor [2012] 5 HKLRD 853：確立了法院在非訴訟方訟費命令上的廣泛酌情權，以及兩階段程序中第一階段的駁回標準。 - Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd & ors [2004] 1 WLR 2807：闡明了當非訴訟方是訴訟的「真正當事人」時，應支付訟費的原則。 - Metalloy Supplies Ltd v MA (UK) Ltd [1997] 1 BCLC 165：討論了對公司董事施加訟費責任的例外性質，以及在無不當行為或惡意情況下不應輕易歸責。 - Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Incorporated & anor [2014] EWHC 2073 (Comm) 及 [2016] 4 WLR 17：指出非訴訟方訟費申請通常在判決後提出，且未發出警告不一定影響申請。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定： 1. 批准將Mr Lee列為HCA 1957/2005、HCA 714/2007及HCA 886/2007案件的當事人，以便向其發出訟費命令。 2. 駁回就上訴法庭訟費命令將Mr Lee列為當事人的申請，理由是原訟法庭無管轄權。 3. 准許Mr Lee在28天內提交反對申請的誓章，華藝各方可在其後28天內提交答覆誓章。 4. 訴訟訟費暫定為訴訟因由的訟費；上訴訟費暫定由華藝各方支付予Mr Lee；聆訊訟費按比例分配。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在處理非訴訟方訟費命令時的兩階段程序，並強調在第一階段，只有在申請明顯構成程序濫用時才會被駁回。判決明確指出，原訟法庭無權處理上訴法庭的訟費命令，這對未來涉及跨級別法院訟費追討的案件具有指導意義。此外，判決還討論了延誤、未申請訟費保證金以及未發出警告等因素對非訴訟方訟費申請的影響，指出這些因素通常在第二階段才作全面考慮。 --- ### 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: BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED and another action - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Au-Yeung J - Date of Judgment: 29 July 2016 ### Factual Background This case involves three actions ("the Actions") and three appeals ("the Appeals"). The applicants ("the Wu Yi Parties") are receiving parties pursuant to costs orders made by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal. The non-party, Mr Lee, was and is a director of Big Island Construction (HK) Limited ("BIC"). The Wu Yi Parties applied to join Mr Lee as a non-party for the purpose of a costs order against him under section 52A of the High Court Ordinance ("HCO") and Order 62, rule 6A of the Rules of the High Court ("RHC"). The Wu Yi Parties claimed Mr Lee was the sole funder and controller of BIC and stood to gain personally from the litigation. Mr Lee opposed the applications on grounds of delay, failed previous applications, failure to seek security for costs, and lack of jurisdiction for the CFI to make orders regarding appeal costs. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Wu Yi Parties' application to join Mr Lee as a non-party for costs should be dismissed at the first stage. Mr Lee raised four grounds of opposition: (1) gross and unexplained delay amounting to abuse of process; (2) previous failed applications against Mr Lee with no appeal; (3) the Wu Yi Parties' failure to apply for security for costs when available; and (4) lack of jurisdiction for the Court of First Instance to make a costs order concerning the Appeals. The court had to determine if these grounds were sufficient to dismiss the application at the first stage. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the two-stage process for joining a non-party for costs under section 52A of the HCO and Order 62, rule 6A of the RHC. At the first stage, joinder should only be refused if it is plain and obvious that the application amounts to an abuse of process. The court found that while there was delay, previous failed applications, and a failure to seek security for costs, these factors were not sufficient to constitute an abuse of process at the first stage. Delay alone is not enough unless the non-party can show real prejudice. Regarding jurisdiction, the court ruled that the Court of First Instance lacked the power to make costs orders for proceedings in the Court of Appeal, as section 52A of the HCO only grants jurisdiction over costs incidental to proceedings before the court making the order. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases to establish the legal principles for non-party costs orders: - Sun Focus Investment Ltd v Tang Shing Bor [2012] 5 HKLRD 853: Affirmed the wide discretion of the court in non-party costs orders and the standard for dismissal at the first stage of the two-stage process. - Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd & ors [2004] 1 WLR 2807: Established the principle that a non-party who is the "real party" to litigation should pay the successful party's costs. - Metalloy Supplies Ltd v MA (UK) Ltd [1997] 1 BCLC 165: Discussed the exceptional nature of imposing costs liability on company directors and the reluctance to do so without impropriety or bad faith. - Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Incorporated & anor [2014] EWHC 2073 (Comm) and [2016] 4 WLR 17: Indicated that non-party costs applications are typically made after judgment and that the absence of a warning does not necessarily defeat an application. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered that: 1. Mr Lee be joined as a party to HCA 1957/2005, HCA 714/2007, and HCA 886/2007 for the purpose of making costs orders against him. 2. The application for joinder concerning the costs of the Appeals be dismissed due to the Court of First Instance's lack of jurisdiction. 3. Mr Lee be granted leave to file an affirmation in opposition within 28 days, and the Wu Yi Parties be granted leave to file a reply affirmation within 28 days thereafter. 4. Costs of the applications for the Actions be in the cause; costs of the applications for the Appeals be paid by the Wu Yi Parties to Mr Lee on a nisi basis; and costs of the hearing be apportioned 25% for each of the three Actions and 25% for all Appeals. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the two-stage process for non-party costs orders in Hong Kong, emphasizing that dismissal at the first stage is reserved for clear cases of abuse of process. It clarifies that the Court of First Instance lacks jurisdiction to make costs orders concerning proceedings in the Court of Appeal, providing important guidance for future cases involving multi-level court costs. The decision also discusses the impact of factors like delay, failure to seek security for costs, and lack of warning, noting that these are typically considered more fully at the second stage of the 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.