變更臨時訟費命令的原則？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23日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告Waddington Limited就其早前獲判的訟費命令 (costs orders nisi) 申請變更。原告曾申請將款項存入法庭，但第一被告和第五被告均反對。法庭在2016年12月6日的判決中駁回了第一被告和第五被告的反對，並命令他們支付原告的訟費。隨後，原告和第五被告各自提交了傳票，要求變更這些訟費命令。原告尋求第一被告支付Waddington傳票的訟費，並要求第五被告彌償其在Waddington傳票和Profit傳票上的所有訟費。第五被告則尋求第一被告支付Waddington傳票的訟費，並要求Profit傳票的訟費不作命令，或由原告支付其訟費。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於如何分配原告Waddington傳票和Profit傳票的訟費。具體而言，爭議點包括：第一被告和第五被告是否應共同承擔Waddington傳票的訟費；第五被告是否應彌償原告在兩份傳票上的所有訟費；以及第五被告在Profit傳票上獲得介入許可 (leave to intervene) 是否足以使其免除支付訟費的責任。 ### 判決理由 法官維持了原先的臨時訟費命令 (costs orders nisi)，即第一被告和第五被告須共同支付原告在Waddington傳票上的訟費，因為他們均未能成功反對該傳票。對於Profit傳票，法官認為第五被告雖然獲得了介入許可，但其主要目的是反對原告的款項存入法庭申請，且該反對最終被駁回。第五被告申請延期聆訊的請求亦被拒絕。因此，法官裁定第五被告應支付原告在Profit傳票上的訟費。至於彌償申請，法官認為由於第五被告已被命令支付訟費，且原告在變更訟費命令的申請中大致上未獲成功，故拒絕了原告的進一步彌償要求。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373，其中Lord Denning MR和Buckley LJ的意見支持了在多重衍生訴訟 (multiple derivative action) 中，原告應由受益公司彌償其未能從第一被告追回的訟費，並應以共同基金基準 (common fund basis) 評定訟費。此案例用於解釋原告尋求彌償的原則，但法官最終基於本案具體情況拒絕了彌償申請。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭確認了原先的臨時訟費命令：第一被告和第五被告須共同支付原告在Waddington傳票上的訟費。第五被告須支付原告在Profit傳票上的訟費。所有訟費均以共同基金基準評定。法庭拒絕了原告提出的進一步彌償要求。由於原告和第五被告在變更訟費命令的申請中大致上均未獲成功，故他們之間不作訟費命令。第一被告成功抵抗了變更申請，因此原告和第五被告須按當事人與當事人基準 (party and party basis) 支付第一被告的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調，即使在衍生訴訟中，若受益方（第五被告）積極反對原告為其利益提出的申請，且其反對不成功，則該受益方仍需承擔訟費。此外，法庭在評估訟費時，會考慮各方在申請中的實質成功程度，而非僅形式上的成功（例如獲得介入許可）。 --- ### 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) & Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 23 February 2017 ### Factual Background This case concerns applications by the Plaintiff, Waddington Limited, to vary costs orders nisi previously made. The Plaintiff had sought an order for payment of sums into court, which both the 1st Defendant and 5th Defendant opposed. The court's decision on 6 December 2016 rejected their opposition and ordered them to pay the Plaintiff's costs. Subsequently, both the Plaintiff and the 5th Defendant filed summonses to vary these costs orders. The Plaintiff sought for the 1st Defendant to pay the costs of the Waddington Summons and for the 5th Defendant to indemnify it for all costs incurred in relation to both the Waddington Summons and the Profit Summons. The 5th Defendant sought for the 1st Defendant to pay the costs of the Waddington Summons and for no order as to costs, or for the Plaintiff to pay its costs, in relation to the Profit Summons. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in dispute were the allocation of costs for the Plaintiff's Waddington Summons and Profit Summons. Specifically, the questions included: whether the 1st and 5th Defendants should jointly bear the costs of the Waddington Summons; whether the 5th Defendant should indemnify the Plaintiff for all costs related to both summonses; and whether the 5th Defendant's success in obtaining leave to intervene in the Profit Summons should exempt it from costs liability. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge upheld the original costs orders nisi, confirming that both the 1st and 5th Defendants should pay the Plaintiff's costs for the Waddington Summons, as they both unsuccessfully opposed it. Regarding the Profit Summons, the judge found that while the 5th Defendant was granted leave to intervene, its primary objective was to resist the Plaintiff's application for payment into court, which was ultimately rejected. The 5th Defendant's application for an adjournment was also refused. Therefore, the judge ruled that the 5th Defendant should pay the Plaintiff's costs for the Profit Summons. The judge declined the Plaintiff's further indemnity request, noting that the 5th Defendant was already ordered to pay costs and the Plaintiff was largely unsuccessful in its applications to vary the costs orders. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] QB 373, specifically the opinions of Lord Denning MR and Buckley LJ, which supported the principle that in a multiple derivative action, the plaintiff should be indemnified by the beneficiary company for costs not recoverable from the first defendant, with costs assessed on a common fund basis. This precedent was used to explain the principle behind the Plaintiff's indemnity claim, though the judge ultimately rejected the specific indemnity application in this case. ### Decision & Orders The court confirmed the original costs orders nisi: the 1st Defendant and 5th Defendant shall jointly pay the Plaintiff's costs for the Waddington Summons. The 5th Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff's costs for the Profit Summons. All costs are to be assessed on a common fund basis. The Plaintiff's further indemnity request was refused. No order as to costs was made between the Plaintiff and the 5th Defendant for their applications to vary the costs orders, as both were largely unsuccessful. The 1st Defendant successfully resisted the variation applications, and thus the Plaintiff and 5th Defendant must pay the 1st Defendant's costs on a party and party basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that even in derivative actions, if a beneficiary (5th Defendant) actively opposes an application made for its benefit and is unsuccessful, it may still be liable for costs. Furthermore, the court assesses costs based on the substantive success of each party in an application, rather than merely formal successes like obtaining leave to intervene. --- ### 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.