敗訴公家能免訟費？？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION & ANOR v PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & ORS - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：區慶祥法官 (Hon Au J) - 判決日期：2017年2月16日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及立法會主席（答辯人）申請更改原訟法庭於2016年11月15日判決中對其作出的臨時訟費命令（costs order nisi）。該判決裁定行政長官及律政司司長（申請人）針對立法會主席的司法覆核申請勝訴。立法會主席曾決定重新為梁頌恆先生和游蕙禎女士監誓，但法庭裁定該決定錯誤，並頒布聲明及禁制令。立法會主席現爭議其應獲豁免支付訟費，理由是其參與訴訟屬於「公眾利益例外」（public interest exception）。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於立法會主席是否應獲豁免支付其在司法覆核案件中的訟費。立法會主席主張其參與訴訟符合「公眾利益例外」原則，因案件涉及公眾利益、法庭是最終仲裁者、判決有助釐清法律，且其僅就其不應被列為答辯人提出有限度反對。申請人則認為，立法會主席作為公共機構，其錯誤或不合法決定不應被視為尋求公眾利益指引，且其積極反對司法覆核，不應獲豁免訟費。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，即使在公法案件中，訟費通常應由敗訴方支付。雖然存在「公眾利益例外」原則，但該原則主要適用於提出挑戰但失敗的申請人，以豁免其訟費。對於積極反對司法覆核的公共機構答辯人，若其決定被裁定為錯誤或不合法，則難以聲稱其參與訴訟是為了尋求公眾利益指引。法庭強調，立法會主席積極反對司法覆核，且其決定被裁定為實質性且錯誤，因此不應獲豁免訟費。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗關於「公眾利益例外」原則的案例，包括： - Chu Hoi Dick v Secretary for Home Affairs (No 2) [2007] 4 HKC 428 - Chan Noi Heung v Chief Executive in Council [2009] 3 HKLRD 362 - Leung Kwok Hung v President of Legislative Council (No 2) (2014) 17 HKCFAR 841 - Re Ho Chun Yan Albert (FAMV 21/2012, 10 January 2013) 這些案例確立了公眾利益例外原則的適用範圍，特別是要求申請人的案件須具備「真正勝訴機會」（real prospect of success）。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回立法會主席更改臨時訟費命令的申請，並裁定該臨時訟費命令成為絕對命令。立法會主席須支付行政長官及律政司司長五分之一的訟費。此外，立法會主席亦須支付本次申請的訟費，如未能達成協議，則須評定訟費，並發出聘用兩名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申，即使在公法案件中，訟費通常應由敗訴方承擔。對於積極參與訴訟並反對司法覆核的公共機構，若其決定被裁定為錯誤，則難以援引「公眾利益例外」原則以豁免訟費。這強調了公共機構在作出決定時應審慎，並在訴訟中考慮其立場的潛在訟費後果。 --- ### 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: CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION & ANOR v PRESIDENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & ORS - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Au J - Date of Judgment: 16 February 2017 ### Factual Background This case concerns an application by the President of the Legislative Council (the Respondent) to vary a costs order nisi made against him in a judgment dated 15 November 2016. That judgment found in favour of the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice (the Applicants) in their judicial review application against the President. The President had decided to re-administer oaths to Mr. Sixtus Leung Chung Hang and Ms. Yau Wai Ching, but the court ruled this decision was erroneous and issued declarations and injunctions. The President now argues for an exemption from costs, claiming his participation in the litigation falls under the "public interest exception." ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question is whether the President of the Legislative Council should be exempted from paying costs incurred in the judicial review proceedings. The President argued his involvement fell within the "public interest exception" because the case involved public interest, the court is the final arbiter, the judgment clarified the law, and his opposition was limited to whether he should have been joined as a respondent. The Applicants contended that as a public body, the President's erroneous or unlawful decision should not be considered as seeking public interest guidance, and his active opposition to the judicial review should not warrant a costs exemption. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that even in public law cases, costs generally follow the event. While a "public interest exception" exists, it primarily applies to applicants who bring unsuccessful challenges, seeking an exemption from costs. For a public body respondent that actively opposes a judicial review, if its decision is found to be erroneous or unlawful, it is difficult to claim its participation was to seek guidance on a point of general public importance. The court emphasized that the President actively opposed the judicial review, and his decision was found to be substantive and erroneous, thus he should not be exempted from costs. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several precedents regarding the "public interest exception" principle, including: - Chu Hoi Dick v Secretary for Home Affairs (No 2) [2007] 4 HKC 428 - Chan Noi Heung v Chief Executive in Council [2009] 3 HKLRD 362 - Leung Kwok Hung v President of Legislative Council (No 2) (2014) 17 HKCFAR 841 - Re Ho Chun Yan Albert (FAMV 21/2012, 10 January 2013) These cases established the scope of the public interest exception, particularly requiring that the applicant's case must have a "real prospect of success." ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the President's application to vary the costs order nisi, making the costs order absolute. The President was ordered to bear one-fifth of the costs of the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice. Furthermore, the President was ordered to pay the costs of this application, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that costs generally follow the event, even in public law cases. A public body that actively participates in and opposes a judicial review, and whose decision is found to be erroneous, cannot easily invoke the "public interest exception" to avoid costs. This underscores the need for public bodies to exercise caution in their decisions and consider the potential costs implications of their litigation stance. --- ### 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.