公司董事是否須個人承擔公司訴訟訟費？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED 及其他案件 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：區婉玲法官 (Hon Au-Yeung J) - 判決日期：2018年4月26日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三宗訴訟（HCA 1957/2005、HCA 714/2007及HCA 886/2007），統稱為「該等訴訟」。Wu Yi各方（被告及原告）已根據針對BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED (BIC) 作出的訟費命令，獲得合共逾港幣600萬元的已評定訟費。Wu Yi各方根據《高等法院條例》（香港法例第4章）第52A條，申請命令BIC的董事Mr Lee個人承擔上述訟費。Wu Yi各方指Mr Lee是BIC的實際擁有人、控制人、唯一出資人，並從訴訟中獲益，且涉及不當行為，包括說謊、偽造文件及偽造罪行。Mr Lee則提出程序抗辯、延誤抗辯、先前申請失敗抗辯及訟費保證金抗辯。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於是否應根據《高等法院條例》第52A條，命令非訴訟方Mr Lee個人承擔BIC在該等訴訟中產生的訟費。主要爭論點包括：Mr Lee是否為訴訟的「實際當事人」(real party)，即他是否擁有並控制BIC、管理訴訟、為訴訟提供資金並從中獲益；他是否導致BIC提出虛假申索或抗辯；以及Mr Lee提出的四項抗辯（程序、延誤、先前申請失敗、訟費保證金）是否成立。 ### 判決理由 法庭根據《高等法院條例》第52A條賦予的廣泛酌情權，裁定Mr Lee是訴訟的「實際當事人」。法官審視了Mr Lee對BIC的所有權和控制權、他對訴訟的管理和資金提供，以及他從訴訟中可能獲得的利益。法庭發現Mr Lee是BIC的唯一實益擁有人，並完全控制該公司及其訴訟策略，且為訴訟提供資金。法庭亦採納了原審法官Poon J關於Mr Lee涉及不當行為（包括說謊、偽造文件和提出虛假申索）的裁斷。對於Mr Lee的抗辯，法庭認為程序抗辯不成立，因為Mr Lee與原訴訟關係密切，且其證據不可信。延誤抗辯雖有延誤，但Mr Lee未能證明實質損害。先前申請失敗抗辯及訟費保證金抗辯亦不成立，因為這些並非絕對的阻礙。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多項案例，包括： - Sun Focus Investment Ltd v Tang Shing Bor [2012] 5 HKLRD 853，確立了非訴訟方訟費命令的程序為簡易程序，且僅適用於明確直接的案件。 - The Liberty Container (2007) 10 HKCFAR 256 及 Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd & ors [2004] 1 WLR 2807，闡明了「實際當事人」原則，即非訴訟方若資助並實質控制訴訟或從中獲益，則應承擔訟費。 - R + V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance & Reinsurance Solutions SA & ors [2005] EWHC 2586 及 [2006] EWCA Civ 314，指出非訴訟方在原訴訟中提供不誠實證據或提出虛假申索是判處訟費的重要因素。 - Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & anor (CA) [2016] 4 WLR 17 及 Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras [2006] EWCA Civ 1038，指出未能申請訟費保證金不一定會阻止成功申請非訴訟方訟費。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定Mr Lee須個人承擔Wu Yi各方在該等訴訟中的訟費。其中HCA 714/2007的訟費按彌償基準計算，其餘訴訟則按訴訟各方基準計算。訟費自2015年12月1日（第52A條申請提出之日）起按判決利率計算利息。法庭強調，儘管存在延誤，但Mr Lee並未因此受到實質損害，且其不當行為是判處個人訟費的關鍵因素。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在香港法律體系中，法院有權命令非訴訟方（特別是公司的董事或實際控制人）個人承擔訟費的原則，尤其是在該非訴訟方被認定為訴訟的「實際當事人」且存在不當訴訟行為的情況下。即使存在申請延誤，若無實質損害，法院仍可酌情判處訟費。此外，未能申請訟費保證金不構成阻止非訴訟方訟費命令的絕對理由。 --- ### 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: BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED v WU YI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED and other cases - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Au-Yeung J - Date of Judgment: 26 April 2018 ### Factual Background This case involved three actions (HCA 1957/2005, HCA 714/2007 & HCA 886/2007), collectively referred to as "the Actions." The Wu Yi Parties (defendants and plaintiff) had obtained taxed costs totaling over HK$6 million against BIG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION (HK) LIMITED (BIC) under various costs orders. The Wu Yi Parties sought an order under Section 52A of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, for Mr Lee, a director of BIC, to personally bear these costs. They alleged Mr Lee was the beneficial owner, controller, sole funder, and beneficiary of the litigation, and engaged in impropriety including lies, fabrication of documents, and forgery. Mr Lee raised four defenses: procedural, delay, failed previous applications, and security for costs. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether Mr Lee, a non-party, should be ordered to personally bear BIC's litigation costs under Section 52A of the High Court Ordinance. Key issues included whether Mr Lee was the "real party" to the litigation, meaning if he owned and controlled BIC, managed the actions, funded them, and stood to benefit. Also, whether he caused BIC to pursue false claims or defenses, and the validity of Mr Lee's four defenses: procedural, delay, failed previous applications, and security for costs. ### Ratio Decidendi The court, exercising its wide discretion under Section 52A of the High Court Ordinance, found Mr Lee to be the "real party" to the litigation. The judge considered Mr Lee's ownership and control of BIC, his management and funding of the actions, and his potential benefits. The court found Mr Lee was the sole beneficial owner of BIC, fully controlled the company and its litigation strategy, and funded the actions. The court also adopted the trial judge Poon J's findings of impropriety by Mr Lee, including lying, fabricating documents, and pursuing false claims. Regarding Mr Lee's defenses, the procedural defense failed as Mr Lee was closely connected to the original proceedings and his evidence was not credible. The delay defense, while acknowledged, did not demonstrate real prejudice to Mr Lee. The defenses of failed previous applications and security for costs were also dismissed as they were not absolute bars. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Several cases were cited, including: - Sun Focus Investment Ltd v Tang Shing Bor [2012] 5 HKLRD 853, establishing that non-party costs orders are summary procedures, applicable only in plain and straightforward cases. - The Liberty Container (2007) 10 HKCFAR 256 and Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd & ors [2004] 1 WLR 2807, which clarified the "real party" principle, where a non-party funding and controlling litigation or benefiting from it should pay costs. - R + V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance & Reinsurance Solutions SA & ors [2005] EWHC 2586 and [2006] EWCA Civ 314, indicating that a non-party giving dishonest evidence or running a false claim is a relevant factor for costs orders. - Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & anor (CA) [2016] 4 WLR 17 and Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras [2006] EWCA Civ 1038, which held that failure to apply for security for costs does not necessarily preclude a successful application for non-party costs. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered Mr Lee to personally bear the Wu Yi Parties' costs in the Actions. Costs for HCA 714/2007 were on an indemnity basis, while costs for the other actions were on a party-and-party basis. Interest on these costs was to accrue at the judgment rate from 1 December 2015 (the date of the Section 52A Applications). The court emphasized that despite the delay, Mr Lee suffered no real prejudice, and his litigation misconduct was a key factor in the decision to award personal costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the court's power in Hong Kong to order a non-party (especially a company director or controller) to personally pay litigation costs, particularly when they are deemed the "real party" to the litigation and have engaged in litigation misconduct. Even if there is a delay in applying for such an order, it may not be a bar if no real prejudice is shown. Furthermore, the failure to seek security for costs is not an absolute impediment to a non-party costs order. --- ### 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.