訟費評定中期證明書的發出條件？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LI SIN MAN SELINE and LEE SHU HANG v LI SHU CHUNG and LI JOSEPH SEE SUN - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：黃佩賢法官 (Hon Lisa Wong J) - 判決日期：2018年6月19日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原訟法庭就訟費評定發出的中期證明書 (interim certificates) 的上訴。訴訟各方在多項訟費命令下產生訟費，並提交了多份訟費清單。支付方（Ken和Joseph）對這些訟費清單提出了異議，但未對部分款項提出異議。收款方（包括Yuen Hing、Mr Lee、Allied Ever和Seline）隨後申請發出中期證明書，要求支付未受異議的款項。聆案官（Master K Lo）在未經實質辯論的情況下，批准了這些申請，並發出了兩份中期證明書，其中一份證明書的金額更應用了45%的折扣，原因不明。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於聆案官是否有權力根據《高等法院規則》 (Rules of the High Court) 第62號命令第17(1)條發出中期證明書，以支付訟費評定中未受異議的部分。支付方認為，除非訟費經過逐項評定 (item-by-item adjudication)，否則不能視為已「評定」(taxed)，因此聆案官無權發出中期證明書。收款方則認為，規則允許分階段評定訟費，且未受異議的部分應可立即發出中期證明書。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，根據《高等法院規則》第62號命令第17(1)條，中期證明書只能針對已「評定」的訟費部分發出。法官參考了Re Grant, Bulcraig & Co案的原則，認為「評定」是指逐項審查訟費清單中的每個項目，並就每個項目決定應允許的金額。聆案官在未進行逐項審查的情況下，僅根據支付方未異議的金額發出中期證明書，不符合「評定」的定義。因此，聆案官無權發出該等中期證明書。法官亦指出，雖然《實務指示14.3》 (Practice Direction 14.3) 允許在傳喚聆訊 (call-over hearing) 階段對完全未受異議的項目發出中期證明書，但本案涉及的是部分受異議的項目。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - SY Engineering Co Ltd v Hong Kong Housing Authority [2001] 2 HKC 226：該案解釋了《高等法院規則》第62號命令第17條，指出中期證明書只能針對已評定的訟費部分發出。 - Re Grant, Bulcraig & Co [1906] 1 Ch 124：該案定義了「評定」(tax) 的含義，即逐項處理每個項目以決定允許或不允許。 - Tsang Sau Hing Beatrice v Yeung Man Loong Maxly [2009] 5 HKC 154：該案涉及在傳喚聆訊階段對未受異議的訟費項目發出中期證明書，但本案法官對其部分判斷表示異議，認為其未充分考慮第62號命令第17(1)條的正確解釋。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定支付方上訴得直，撤銷了聆案官發出的兩份中期證明書。此外，法庭將收款方提出的替代申請，即根據法院固有司法管轄權 (inherent jurisdiction) 申請中期付款 (interim payment) 的部分，發還給聆案官重新考慮。法庭初步命令收款方支付支付方上訴的訟費，並命令Yuen Hing支付Ken因第一份傳喚令而產生的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決澄清了香港法院在訟費評定過程中發出中期證明書的權力範圍，強調「評定」必須是逐項審查的過程，而非僅基於未受異議的金額。這對訟費評定實務具有重要指導意義，尤其是在處理部分受異議的訟費項目時。判決還強調了程序公平的重要性，即使在有充分理由支持中期付款的情況下，也應給予對方提供證據的機會。 --- ### 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: LI SIN MAN SELINE and LEE SHU HANG v LI SHU CHUNG and LI JOSEPH SEE SUN - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Lisa Wong J - Date of Judgment: 19 June 2018 ### Factual Background This case concerns appeals against interim certificates issued by a Master in relation to costs taxation. The parties incurred costs under various costs orders and submitted several bills of costs. The Paying Parties (Ken and Joseph) raised objections to these bills, but certain amounts remained unopposed. The Receiving Parties (including Yuen Hing, Mr Lee, Allied Ever, and Seline) subsequently applied for interim certificates for the unopposed portions. Master K Lo granted these applications without substantive argument, issuing two interim certificates, one of which applied an unexplained 45% discount to the amounts. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the Master had the power under Order 62, rule 17(1) of the Rules of the High Court to issue interim certificates for the unopposed parts of costs claimed in taxation. The Paying Parties argued that costs are not "taxed" unless subjected to an item-by-item adjudication, and thus the Master lacked jurisdiction. The Receiving Parties contended that the rule allowed for staged taxation and that unopposed parts could be immediately certified. ### Ratio Decidendi The court held that under Order 62, rule 17(1) of the Rules of the High Court, an interim certificate can only be issued for a part of costs that has been "taxed." The judge, referring to the principle in Re Grant, Bulcraig & Co, defined "taxing" as dealing seriatim with each item in a bill of costs by way of allowance or disallowance. The Master's approach of issuing certificates based solely on unopposed amounts, without an item-by-item review, did not constitute "taxing." Therefore, the Master had no jurisdiction to issue the interim certificates. The judge also noted that while Practice Direction 14.3 allows for interim certificates for wholly unopposed items at a call-over hearing, this case involved partially opposed items. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The main precedents cited in this case were: - SY Engineering Co Ltd v Hong Kong Housing Authority [2001] 2 HKC 226: This case explained Order 62, rule 17 of the RHC, stating that interim certificates can only be issued for taxed costs. - Re Grant, Bulcraig & Co [1906] 1 Ch 124: This case provided a definition of "tax" as dealing seriatim with each item. - Tsang Sau Hing Beatrice v Yeung Man Loong Maxly [2009] 5 HKC 154: This case concerned interim certificates for unopposed items at a call-over hearing, but the judge in the present case respectfully departed from some of its reasoning regarding the proper construction of Order 62, rule 17(1). ### Decision & Orders The court allowed the Paying Parties' appeals and set aside the two interim certificates issued by the Master. Furthermore, the alternative application by the Receiving Parties for an interim payment under the court's inherent jurisdiction was remitted back to the Master for reconsideration. The court made an order nisi that the Receiving Parties should pay the Paying Parties' costs of their appeals, and Yuen Hing should pay Ken's costs occasioned by the first summons. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the scope of the court's power to issue interim certificates during costs taxation in Hong Kong, emphasizing that "taxation" requires an item-by-item review process, not merely a calculation based on unopposed amounts. This has significant implications for costs taxation practice, particularly when dealing with partially disputed cost items. The judgment also underscores the importance of procedural fairness, ensuring parties have an opportunity to present evidence even when there are compelling factors favoring interim payment. --- ### 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.