衍生訴訟訟費彌償的評定基準？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Waddington Limited 訴 Chan Chun Hoo Thomas 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：2018年3月21日 ### 案情摘要 本案是一宗多重衍生訴訟 (multiple derivative action)，由少數股東 Waddington Limited（原告）代表 Profit Point Limited（第五被告）向 Chan Chun Hoo Thomas（第一被告）追討損害賠償。原告成功獲得有利判決，並獲判訟費。隨後，原告與第五被告之間就訟費彌償 (indemnity) 的範圍和評定方式產生爭議。第五被告要求原告就其承擔的訟費進行評定，並主張應以「訴訟各方基準」(party and party basis) 或「共同基金基準」(common fund basis) 評定。原告則認為應獲「全面彌償」(full indemnity)，僅受限於第五被告可根據《法律執業者條例》(Legal Practitioners Ordinance) 第68(1)條要求以「律師與當事人基準」(solicitor and own client basis) 評定其律師費。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議在於，原告在衍生訴訟中獲得的訟費彌償，應以何種基準進行評定。第五被告主張應以「訴訟各方基準」或「共同基金基準」評定，而原告則認為應獲「全面彌償」，僅受限於第五被告可要求以「律師與當事人基準」評定其律師費。法院需決定彌償是否應受法院審查，以及適當的審查形式和評定標準。 ### 判決理由 法官認為，衍生訴訟中少數股東（原告）獲得的訟費彌償應受法院審查。雖然衍生訴訟原告的彌償權利是借鑒信託人/代理人 (trustee/agent) 的地位，但兩者並非完全相同，因為原告通常對訴訟結果有個人財務利益，且不對公司負有信託人/代理人的既定職責。法官採納了 Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) 案中多數意見的分析，裁定彌償訟費應以「共同基金基準」評定，這既符合原則，也對各方公平。法官駁回了原告關於「全面彌償」的主張，認為公司不應被要求彌償客觀上不合理或不應有的費用。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了 Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373 案，特別是 Lord Denning MR 和 Buckley LJ 的意見，以確立衍生訴訟中原告訟費彌償應以「共同基金基準」評定。此外，亦提及 Re Grimthorpe [1958] 1 Ch 615 和 Lewin on Trusts，但指出衍生訴訟原告與信託人/代理人之間的類比並非完全相同。法院還參考了其在 Melvin Waxman v Li Fei Yu, HCA 1973/2012 [2017] HKCFI 583 案中的先前判決。 ### 裁決與命令 法院裁定，原告根據2014年3月命令和2014年11月命令應獲彌償的訟費，應由聆案官 (Master) 以「共同基金基準」評定。原告必須在14天內啟動訟費評定程序，否則將被禁止向第五被告強制執行彌償。此外，第五被告須向原告支付港幣15萬元，作為終審法院上訴許可彌償的最終清償。原告須支付第五被告就本申請產生的訟費，以「訴訟各方基準」評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決澄清了香港衍生訴訟中，少數股東獲得的訟費彌償應以「共同基金基準」而非「律師與當事人基準」進行評定。這強調了即使是獲得彌償的訴訟方，其訟費仍需受法院審查，以確保合理性。判決區分了衍生訴訟原告與傳統信託人/代理人在訟費彌償方面的差異，指出衍生訴訟原告的個人利益會影響其訟費評定標準。 --- ### 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 and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 21 March 2018 ### Factual Background This is a multiple derivative action brought by Waddington Limited (the Plaintiff), a minority shareholder, on behalf of Profit Point Limited (the 5th Defendant) against Chan Chun Hoo Thomas (the 1st Defendant) for damages. The Plaintiff successfully obtained a judgment in its favour and was awarded costs. Subsequently, a dispute arose between the Plaintiff and the 5th Defendant regarding the scope and assessment basis of the costs indemnity. The 5th Defendant sought an order for the Plaintiff's costs to be taxed or assessed on a "party and party" or "common fund" basis. The Plaintiff contended it was entitled to a "full indemnity," subject only to the 5th Defendant's right to call for taxation of its solicitors' bills on a "solicitor and own client" basis under Section 68(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was the basis on which the Plaintiff's costs, subject to indemnity in this derivative action, should be assessed. The 5th Defendant argued for a "party and party" or "common fund" basis, while the Plaintiff sought a "full indemnity," allowing the 5th Defendant to only challenge the solicitors' bills on a "solicitor and own client" basis. The court had to determine if the indemnity was subject to court scrutiny and, if so, the appropriate form of scrutiny and assessment scale. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge held that the Plaintiff's costs indemnity in a derivative action must be subject to court scrutiny. While the jurisprudential basis for a derivative plaintiff's right to indemnity draws an analogy with a trustee/agent, the analogy is not exact because a derivative plaintiff typically has a personal financial interest in the litigation's outcome and does not owe the same established duties to the company as a trustee/agent. The judge adopted the majority approach in Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2), ruling that the indemnified costs should be assessed on a "common fund basis," which he found to be principled and practically just. The judge rejected the Plaintiff's claim for a "full indemnity," stating that the company should not be required to indemnify objectively unjustifiable or unreasonable costs. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment primarily cited Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373, particularly the opinions of Lord Denning MR and Buckley LJ, to establish that a derivative plaintiff's costs indemnity should be assessed on a "common fund basis." It also referred to Re Grimthorpe [1958] 1 Ch 615 and Lewin on Trusts, but distinguished the analogy between a derivative plaintiff and a trustee/agent. The court also referenced its previous decision in Melvin Waxman v Li Fei Yu, HCA 1973/2012 [2017] HKCFI 583. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered that the Plaintiff's costs under the March 2014 Order and November 2014 Order, subject to indemnity, shall be taxed or assessed by a Master on a "common fund basis." The Plaintiff must commence taxation proceedings within 14 days, failing which it will be debarred from enforcing the indemnity against the 5th Defendant. The 5th Defendant was also ordered to pay HK$150,000 to the Plaintiff in full discharge of the CFA Leave Indemnity. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 5th Defendant's costs of the two summonses, to be taxed on a "party and party basis." ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies that in Hong Kong derivative actions, a minority shareholder's costs indemnity should be assessed on a "common fund basis" rather than a "solicitor and own client basis." It underscores that even indemnified costs are subject to court scrutiny to ensure reasonableness. The decision distinguishes derivative plaintiffs from traditional trustees/agents regarding costs indemnity, highlighting that a derivative plaintiff's personal interest influences the standard of costs assessment. --- ### 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.