訴訟費用中期付款及彌償範圍？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2月9日 ### 案情摘要 原告Waddington Limited向第五被告Profit Point Limited申請進一步中期付款 (interim payment)，以支付訴訟費用。原告此前已獲批一筆2,300萬港元的中期付款。本次申請包括三部分：就訴訟費用申請額外10,200,379.28港元中期付款；就上訴案件CACV 10/2014的費用申請4,580,722.09港元付款；以及就第一被告向終審法院申請上訴許可的費用申請彌償 (indemnity) 及16,800港元中期付款。第五被告反對這些申請，質疑所涉費用的合理性及彌償範圍。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告是否有權獲得進一步的中期付款，以及彌償令的範圍。原告主張其因持續為訴訟提供資金而蒙受不公，並已產生大量費用。第五被告則認為大部分費用已在先前的中期付款申請中考慮，且原告所申報的費用可能不合理或不應由第五被告承擔。此外，雙方就彌償應以彌償基準 (indemnity basis) 還是共同基金基準 (common fund basis) 評定費用存在爭議。 ### 判決理由 法官拒絕批准進一步中期付款，理由是大部分費用已在先前申請中考慮，且情況並無重大改變。法官強調，彌償令不代表原告可全額收回所有費用，費用仍須經法院審查其合理性。對於上訴費用，法官指出先前的彌償令僅涵蓋第一被告的上訴費用，不包括原告的交叉上訴 (cross-appeals) 費用，且原告未能提供充分理據支持其交叉上訴的合理性。對於上訴許可費用，法官雖批准彌償，但設有15萬港元上限，並明確費用應按共同基金基準評定。 ### 引用案例與條文 Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373：本案引用此案例，以支持在特定情況下，費用應按共同基金基準 (common fund basis) 評定，特別是Lord Denning MR和Buckley LJ的意見（見第28段）。 本案未有特別引用其他案例。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回原告就訴訟費用及上訴費用申請進一步中期付款。法庭命令第五被告須彌償原告因第一被告向終審法院申請上訴許可而合理產生的費用，上限為15萬港元，並按共同基金基準評定。原告須支付第五被告因反對本次申請而產生的訟費，按當事人與當事人基準 (party and party basis) 評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申，中期付款並非旨在全額支付最終可能獲得彌償的費用，而是為緩解訴訟期間的資金壓力。法院在評估中期付款申請時，會考慮費用是否合理產生、是否存在情況的重大變化，以及費用與追討金額的比例。此外，彌償令的範圍應明確界定，不應透過暗示擴大。對於未來費用彌償申請，申請人應提供合理費用估算，以便法院進行適當控制。 --- ### 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: 9 February 2017 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Waddington Limited, applied for further interim payments from the 5th defendant, Profit Point Limited, for litigation costs. The plaintiff had previously received an interim payment of HK$23 million. The current application comprised three parts: an additional interim payment of HK$10,200,379.28 for action costs; payment of HK$4,580,722.09 for costs incurred in appeal case CACV 10/2014; and an indemnity and an interim payment of HK$16,800 for the 1st defendant's applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The 5th defendant opposed these applications, questioning the reasonableness of the costs and the scope of the indemnity. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this case were whether the plaintiff was entitled to further interim payments and the scope of the indemnity orders. The plaintiff argued that it suffered injustice by continuously funding the litigation and had incurred substantial costs. The 5th defendant contended that most of the costs had been considered in the previous interim payment application, and the claimed costs might be unreasonable or not attributable to the 5th defendant. Furthermore, there was a dispute over whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis or a common fund basis. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge declined to order further interim payments, stating that the bulk of the costs had been considered in the previous application and there had been no material change in circumstances. The judge emphasized that an indemnity does not entitle the plaintiff to recover the full amount of costs incurred, as costs are still subject to court scrutiny for reasonableness. Regarding appeal costs, the judge noted that the previous indemnity only covered the 1st defendant's appeal, not the plaintiff's cross-appeals, and the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient justification for its cross-appeals. For leave to appeal costs, an indemnity was granted but capped at HK$150,000, with costs to be assessed on a common fund basis. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373: This case was cited to support the principle that costs should be assessed on a common fund basis in certain circumstances, specifically referring to the opinions of Lord Denning MR and Buckley LJ (see paragraph 28). None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications for further interim payments for action costs and appeal costs. The court ordered the 5th defendant to indemnify the plaintiff for reasonably incurred costs related to the 1st defendant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, capped at HK$150,000, and to be assessed on a common fund basis. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the 5th defendant's costs of opposing the summons, to be taxed on a party and party basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that interim payments are not intended to fully cover costs ultimately recoverable under an indemnity, but rather to alleviate financial strain during litigation. When assessing interim payment applications, the court considers the reasonableness of costs, any material change in circumstances, and proportionality between costs and recovery. Furthermore, the scope of an indemnity order should be clearly defined and not extended by implication. For prospective indemnity applications, applicants should provide reasonable cost estimates for proper court control. --- ### 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.