判決金付法院或公司？？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Waddington Limited 訴 Chan Chun Hoo Thomas (陳俊豪) 及其他人 - 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12月6日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於Waddington Limited（原告）代表Profit Point Limited（第五被告）對Chan Chun Hoo Thomas（第一被告）提起的一宗多重衍生訴訟 (multiple derivative action)，指控其違反受信責任 (breach of fiduciary duty)。原訟法庭於2013年12月18日裁定Profit勝訴，判給港幣33,511,220.32元的判決金額。其後，法庭命令第一被告將判決金額及判決前利息 (pre-judgment interest) 支付入法院，而非直接支付予Profit，理由是Profit是一家已解散後復牌的英屬維爾京群島公司，且仍受第一被告控制，為防止款項再次落入不當控制，故須支付入法院。上訴法庭其後更改了判決前利息的計算利率，導致產生一筆差額（「差額」）。第一被告將該差額直接支付予Profit，而非支付入法院。原告因此申請命令第一被告將差額及相關判決後利息 (post-judgment interest) 支付入法院。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議包括：第一被告應否將上訴法庭裁定的判決前利息差額支付入法院而非直接支付予Profit；判決金額的判決後利息是否也應支付入法院；以及判決後利息是否應在判決前利息上計算，並同樣支付入法院。第一被告和Profit均主張差額及判決後利息應直接支付予Profit，而非支付入法院。 ### 判決理由 法官分析認為，上訴法庭的命令僅更改了判決前利息的利率，而原訟法庭要求將款項支付入法院的命令仍然有效。因此，差額應支付入法院。對於判決金額的判決後利息，雖然原命令未明確要求支付入法院，但基於邏輯一致性，法官認為該利息也應支付入法院。至於判決後利息是否應在判決前利息上計算，法官引用了案例，確認判決前利息構成「判決債務」(judgment debt) 的一部分，因此根據《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance) 第49條，判決後利息應在判決前利息上計算，並同樣支付入法院。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例，以確立判決前利息構成判決債務的一部分，並應計算判決後利息： - Novoship (UK) Limited v Vladimir Mikhaylyuk [2013] EWHC 89 (Comm) (第21-23、32-38及40段) - Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (No 2) [1997] QB 489 (第494E-F段) 此外，本案亦依據《高等法院條例》第49條處理判決後利息的計算。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定原告勝訴。法官命令第一被告在14天內支付以下款項入法院：港幣18,970,563.51元的差額；該差額自2013年12月18日起至支付日期的8%年利率判決後利息；以及港幣683,078.03元的判決金額判決後利息。Profit獲准介入訴訟，但其要求將款項直接支付予Profit的申請被駁回。訟費方面，第一被告和Profit須支付原告的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了在衍生訴訟中，為保護受益公司免受不當控制，法庭有權命令將判決款項（包括判決金額及判決前利息）支付入法院。此外，判決明確了判決前利息屬於判決債務的一部分，因此應當計算判決後利息，並同樣支付入法院。這對涉及公司控制權爭議的衍生訴訟具有重要參考意義。 --- ### 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: Waddington Limited v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 6 December 2016 ### Factual Background This case originated from a multiple derivative action brought by Waddington Limited (the plaintiff) on behalf of Profit Point Limited (the 5th defendant) against Chan Chun Hoo Thomas (the 1st defendant) for breach of fiduciary duty. The Court of First Instance ruled in favour of Profit on 18 December 2013, awarding a judgment sum of HK$33,511,220.32. Subsequently, the court ordered the 1st defendant to pay the judgment sum and pre-judgment interest into court, rather than directly to Profit. This was due to Profit being a BVI company that had been dissolved and restored for the action, and still under the 1st defendant's control, to prevent the funds from falling under improper control again. The Court of Appeal later varied the rate of pre-judgment interest, resulting in a shortfall. The 1st defendant paid this shortfall directly to Profit instead of into court. The plaintiff applied for an order directing the 1st defendant to pay the shortfall and related post-judgment interest into court. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were: whether the 1st defendant should pay the pre-judgment interest shortfall, as determined by the Court of Appeal, into court instead of directly to Profit; whether post-judgment interest on the principal judgment sum should also be paid into court; and whether post-judgment interest is payable on pre-judgment interest and should likewise be paid into court. Both the 1st defendant and Profit contended that the shortfall and post-judgment interest should be paid directly to Profit, not into court. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge reasoned that the Court of Appeal's order only changed the rate of pre-judgment interest, leaving the original order to pay funds into court intact. Therefore, the shortfall should be paid into court. Regarding post-judgment interest on the judgment sum, although the original order did not explicitly require payment into court, the judge found that logic dictated it should also be paid into court. As for whether post-judgment interest is payable on pre-judgment interest, the judge cited precedents confirming that pre-judgment interest forms part of the "judgment debt" for the purpose of section 49 of the High Court Ordinance, and thus post-judgment interest should be calculated on it and similarly paid into court. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited the following precedents to establish that pre-judgment interest forms part of the judgment debt and should accrue post-judgment interest: - Novoship (UK) Limited v Vladimir Mikhaylyuk [2013] EWHC 89 (Comm) (paragraphs 21-23, 32-38 and 40) - Miliangos v George Frank (Textiles) Ltd (No 2) [1997] QB 489 (paragraphs 494E-F) Additionally, the case relied on section 49 of the High Court Ordinance for the calculation of post-judgment interest. ### Decision & Orders The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff. The judge ordered the 1st defendant to pay into court within 14 days: the sum of HK$18,970,563.51 (the shortfall); post-judgment interest on this shortfall at 8% per annum from 18 December 2013 to the date of payment; and the sum of HK$683,078.03 (post-judgment interest on the judgment sum). Profit was granted leave to intervene but its application for direct payment to Profit was dismissed. As for costs, the 1st defendant and Profit were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the court's power in derivative actions to order judgment sums (including pre-judgment interest) to be paid into court to protect the beneficiary company from improper control. Furthermore, it clarifies that pre-judgment interest constitutes part of the judgment debt, and therefore post-judgment interest should be calculated on it and similarly paid into court. This has significant implications for derivative actions involving corporate control disputes. --- ### 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.