律政司評定訟費時是否須提供律師資歷？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Ma Sin Chi; HKSAR v HUI Rafael Junior; HKSAR v Wong Suk-wah; HKSAR v The First Telephone Motel Company Limited; HKSAR v CHEUL Lam-yan, George; HKSAR v Liu Lixiang; HKSAR v Fung Chi-wah; HKSAR v CHAN Kin-keung, John; HKSAR v TSANG Heung-chun; HKSAR v MAK Tak-on; HKSAR v Choi Lok Yin, Kingston - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：司法常務官龍劍雲 (Registrar K. W. Lung) - 判決日期：2017年3月14日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及律政司 (Department of Justice, DoJ) 提交的11份刑事上訴訟費單，要求向敗訴的上訴人徵收訟費。上訴人未提出異議，律政司申請書面評定訟費。司法常務官在評定過程中發現，律政司高級政府律師及政府律師的時薪收費為港幣6,000元或5,000元，高於民事訴訟中具有10年以上資歷律師的每小時4,000元標準。司法常務官要求律政司提供負責案件的政府律師的資歷信息，但律政司拒絕提供，並要求舉行聆訊以解決此爭議。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於律政司是否有義務向法庭提供負責刑事上訴案件的政府律師的資歷信息，以便法庭評定訟費。律政司主張應適用彌償原則 (indemnity principle)，並按高級合夥人級別或更高標準計算政府律師的時薪。司法常務官則認為，律政司應提供資歷信息，以確保訟費評定合理且符合《法律執業者條例》及相關實務指示。 ### 判決理由 司法常務官裁定，律政司有義務提供負責案件的政府律師的資歷信息，以便法庭合理評定訟費。法庭指出，律政司的訟費應根據《高等法院規則》第62號命令及《法律執業者（費用及訟費）規則》與私人執業律師相同基礎進行評定。雖然律政司引用了 The Building Authority v Business Rights Ltd 案中關於政府律師應按最高時薪收費的說法，但司法常務官認為該說法被斷章取義，且與 Ling Yuk Sing 案中根據律師資歷確定時薪的原則不符。法庭強調，評定訟費時必須考慮《高等法院規則》附表一第二部分所列的七項因素，而政府律師的資歷是評定時薪的起點。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Ling Yuk Sing v The Secretary for The Civil Service & Another [2010] 3 HKLRD 722，該案確立了政府律師的訟費應按其資歷與私人執業律師相同基礎進行評定。此外，本案還討論了 The Building Authority v Business Rights Ltd (unreported, HCMP 3805/1993, 28 April 1999) 案中關於政府律師時薪的說法，並指出該說法被律政司斷章取義。 ### 裁決與命令 司法常務官決定暫緩評定訟費，直至律政司提供所有涉及訟費單的政府律師的資歷信息，以及案件的複雜性（如適用）。法庭進一步指示，未來任何未包含此類信息的律政司訟費單將被視為不完整，並將退回律政司要求補充信息。由於支付方未出席，本聆訊不作訟費命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決明確了律政司在刑事案件中申請訟費評定時，必須提供負責案件的政府律師的資歷信息。這有助於確保訟費評定過程的透明度和公平性，並防止律政司在沒有充分理據的情況下，為其律師索取過高的時薪。此裁決對律政司未來的訟費申請程序具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: HKSAR v Ma Sin Chi; HKSAR v HUI Rafael Junior; HKSAR v Wong Suk-wah; HKSAR v The First Telephone Motel Company Limited; HKSAR v CHEUL Lam-yan, George; HKSAR v Liu Lixiang; HKSAR v Fung Chi-wah; HKSAR v CHAN Kin-keung, John; HKSAR v TSANG Heung-chun; HKSAR v MAK Tak-on; HKSAR v Choi Lok Yin, Kingston - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Registrar K. W. Lung - Date of Judgment: 14 March 2017 ### Factual Background This case concerns 11 bills of costs for criminal appeals submitted by the Department of Justice (DoJ) against unsuccessful appellants. The appellants did not object, and the DoJ applied for taxation on paper. During taxation, the Registrar found that senior government counsel and government counsel were charging HK$6,000 or HK$5,000 per hour, exceeding the HK$4,000 per hour standard for solicitors with over 10 years' post-qualification experience in civil litigation. The Registrar requested information on the seniority of the government counsel involved, but the DoJ refused and requested a hearing on the issue. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Department of Justice is obliged to provide information on the seniority of government counsel handling criminal appeal cases for the purpose of costs taxation. The DoJ argued for the application of the indemnity principle and hourly rates equivalent to or higher than a senior partner. The Registrar contended that seniority information is necessary for reasonable taxation, consistent with the Legal Practitioners Ordinance and relevant practice directions. ### Ratio Decidendi The Registrar ruled that the DoJ is obliged to provide information on the seniority of government counsel involved in cases for proper costs taxation. The court stated that DoJ's costs should be taxed on the same basis as private practitioners, according to Order 62 of the Rules of the High Court and the Legal Officers (Fees and Costs) Rules. While the DoJ cited The Building Authority v Business Rights Ltd for the proposition that government counsel should be awarded the highest hourly rate, the Registrar found this statement taken out of context and inconsistent with Ling Yuk Sing, which bases hourly rates on counsel's seniority. The court emphasized that the seven factors in Part II of the First Schedule to Order 62 must be considered, with counsel's hourly rates being the starting point. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Ling Yuk Sing v The Secretary for The Civil Service & Another [2010] 3 HKLRD 722, which established that government lawyers' costs should be taxed on the same basis as private practitioners, considering their seniority. The judgment also discussed The Building Authority v Business Rights Ltd (unreported, HCMP 3805/1993, 28 April 1999), noting that the DoJ had taken a statement from it out of context. ### Decision & Orders The Registrar decided to withhold taxation of the bills until the DoJ provides information on the post-qualification experience of the government counsel involved in the bills of costs and the complexities of the case, if applicable. The court further directed that any future DoJ bills of costs lacking such information would be deemed incomplete and returned for the required details. No order as to costs for this hearing was made as the paying parties were not present. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies that the Department of Justice must provide seniority information for its government counsel when seeking costs taxation in criminal cases. This ensures transparency and fairness in the taxation process and prevents the DoJ from claiming excessive hourly rates without proper justification. The ruling provides important guidance for the DoJ's future costs applications. --- ### 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.