非訟費當事人訟費命令的出資人身份披露？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Waddington Limited v 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：2017年1月25日 ### 案情摘要 原告 Waddington Limited 是一家少數股東，代表 Playmates Holdings Limited（第三被告）的附屬公司 Profit Point Limited（第五被告）提起一項多重衍生訴訟 (multiple derivative action)。第五被告已於2003年解散，後於2005年恢復，目的是追討其索賠。2013年，法庭判第五被告勝訴，第一被告須支付港幣33,511,220.32元。第一被告提出上訴，並將款項存入法庭。原告申請從存入法庭的款項中支付中期款項 (interim payment)，並要求第五被告彌償其上訴訟費。第五被告反對此申請，但其上訴被駁回。原告現尋求命令，要求第五被告的前律師 Reed Smith Richards Butler（RSRB）披露第五被告的訟費出資人 (funder) 身份，以準備根據《高等法院條例》第52A(2)條申請非訟費當事人命令 (non-party costs order)。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於是否應命令第五被告的前律師 RSRB 披露第五被告的訟費出資人身份。原告認為，第五被告自身沒有足夠資產支付已判給原告的訟費，且其資產應保留給股東，因此應由出資人承擔訟費。原告亦尋求披露訟費明細及出資協議。RSRB 則反對披露，理由是第五被告有足夠資產支付訟費，且原告的申請是事後諸葛 (afterthought) 和濫用程序 (abuse of process)。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，法院有司法管轄權根據《高等法院條例》第52A(2)條對非訟費當事人發出訟費命令，並有附帶司法管轄權 (ancillary jurisdiction) 命令受資助方或其律師披露出資人身份及相關資助安排信息。法庭考慮了申請的理據強度、披露信息對公平裁決的潛在價值、法律專業特權 (legal professional privilege) 的適用性以及命令的相稱性 (proportionate) 和公正性。法庭認為，原告的申請有合理成功機會，且出資人身份對原告的意圖申請至關重要。出資人身份和支付訟費的事實不受法律專業特權保護。法庭亦駁回了 RSRB 關於第五被告有足夠資產、其反對合理以及原告申請屬濫用程序的論點。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來確立法院在非訟費當事人訟費命令方面的司法管轄權和酌情權行使原則： - Great City Enterprises Ltd v UBS AG [2014] 5 HKC 361：確認法院有權命令披露出資人身份。 - SC DG Petrol SRL v Vitol Broking Ltd [2014] EWHC 3900 及 Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Crosseas Shipping Ltd [2003] EWHC 1381 (Comm)：支持法院的附帶司法管轄權。 - Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School [2009] 6 Costs LR 859 及 Flatman v Germany [2013] 1 WLR 2676：總結了酌情權行使的相關因素。 - Pang Yiu Hung v Commissioner of Police [2003] 2 HKLRD 125 及 Akai Holdings Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v James Henry Ting (13 September 2016), HCCL 42/2005：確認出資人身份不受法律專業特權保護。 - Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd [2004] 1 WLR 2807 及 Dunghutti Elders Council(Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC v Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations (No 4) (2012) 200 FCR 154：討論了被資助方財政狀況的相關性。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准了原告要求披露第五被告訟費出資人身份的申請，命令 RSRB 須在7天內提交並送達一份由其合夥人作出的誓章，披露出資人身份。法庭駁回了原告要求披露訟費明細、支付款項信息以及出資協議的申請。RSRB 須支付原告就兩份傳票所產生總訟費的80%。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港法院在處理非訟費當事人訟費命令申請時，有權命令披露訟費出資人身份。判決強調，出資人身份和支付訟費的事實不受法律專業特權保護。然而，法庭也明確指出，對於訟費明細和出資協議等進一步披露，應在出資人身份確定後再行考慮，以避免不必要的衛星訴訟 (satellite litigation) 和確保披露的相稱性。 --- ### 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 (陳俊豪) and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 25 January 2017 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Waddington Limited, a minority shareholder, brought a multiple derivative action on behalf of Profit Point Limited (the 5th defendant), an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Playmates Holdings Limited (the 3rd defendant). The 5th defendant was dissolved in 2003 and restored in 2005 to pursue claims. In 2013, judgment was entered in favour of the 5th defendant against the 1st defendant for HK$33,511,220.32. The 1st defendant appealed and paid the sum into court. The plaintiff applied for an interim payment from the sum in court and for the 5th defendant to indemnify its appeal costs. The 5th defendant opposed this, but its appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff now seeks an order for Reed Smith Richards Butler (RSRB), former solicitors for the 5th defendant, to disclose the identity of the 5th defendant's funder(s) to prepare for a non-party costs order application under Section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether RSRB, the 5th defendant's former solicitors, should be ordered to disclose the identity of the 5th defendant's funder(s). The plaintiff argued that the 5th defendant lacked sufficient assets to pay the costs awarded to the plaintiff, and its assets should be preserved for shareholders, thus the funder should bear the costs. The plaintiff also sought disclosure of itemised costs and funding agreements. RSRB opposed disclosure, contending that the 5th defendant had sufficient assets, its opposition was reasonable, and the plaintiff's application was an afterthought and an abuse of process. ### Ratio Decidendi The court held that it has jurisdiction to make a non-party costs order under Section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance, and an ancillary jurisdiction to order the funded party or its solicitors to disclose the funder's identity and information about the funding arrangement. The court considered the strength of the application, the potential value of disclosure for a fair determination, the applicability of legal professional privilege, and the proportionality and justice of the order. The court found the plaintiff's intended application had a reasonable prospect of success and the funder's identity was critically important. The identity of the funder and the fact of costs payment are not protected by legal professional privilege. The court also rejected RSRB's arguments regarding the 5th defendant's assets, the reasonableness of its opposition, and the plaintiff's application being an abuse of process. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish the court's jurisdiction and principles for exercising discretion in non-party costs orders: - Great City Enterprises Ltd v UBS AG [2014] 5 HKC 361: Confirmed the court's power to order disclosure of funder identity. - SC DG Petrol SRL v Vitol Broking Ltd [2014] EWHC 3900 and Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Crosseas Shipping Ltd [2003] EWHC 1381 (Comm): Supported the court's ancillary jurisdiction. - Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School [2009] 6 Costs LR 859 and Flatman v Germany [2013] 1 WLR 2676: Summarised factors relevant to the exercise of discretion. - Pang Yiu Hung v Commissioner of Police [2003] 2 HKLRD 125 and Akai Holdings Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v James Henry Ting (13 September 2016), HCCL 42/2005: Confirmed funder identity is not protected by legal professional privilege. - Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd [2004] 1 WLR 2807 and Dunghutti Elders Council(Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC v Registrar of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Corporations (No 4) (2012) 200 FCR 154: Discussed the relevance of the funded party's financial position. ### Decision & Orders The court granted the plaintiff's application for disclosure of the 5th defendant's funder's identity, ordering RSRB to file and serve an affidavit by a partner within 7 days. The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for disclosure of itemised costs, payment information, and funding agreements. RSRB was ordered to pay 80% of the plaintiff's overall costs incurred in relation to the two summonses. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Hong Kong court's power to order disclosure of a litigation funder's identity when considering a non-party costs order. It highlights that the funder's identity and the fact of costs payment are not protected by legal professional privilege. However, the court also clarified that further disclosure, such as itemised costs and funding agreements, should be considered after the funder's identity is established, to avoid unnecessary satellite litigation and ensure proportionality of disclosure. --- ### 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.