衍生訴訟中公司款項是否可直接支付股東？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：2018年12月5日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及原告Waddington Limited針對第五被告Profit Point Limited提出的兩項傳票申請。第一項是第五被告申請從已存入法庭的款項中支付全數或法庭認為合適的款項（「支付款項申請」）。第二項是原告申請修改其於2018年6月27日提交的訟費清單（「修訂申請」），以納入額外訟費，包括上訴法庭及終審法院的訟費，以及根據共同基金基準評定的訴訟訟費。這些訟費涉及原告根據法庭命令向第五被告追討的彌償金。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議有二：首先，原告是否有權修改其訟費清單，以納入上訴法庭及終審法院的訟費，以及根據共同基金基準評定的訴訟訟費。其次，第五被告是否有權獲支付已存入法庭的款項，而原告則提出反對，包括基於美國判例法提出的按比例直接向股東支付款項的主張，以及關於第五被告使用該款項可能違反英屬維爾京群島（BVI）命令的爭議。 ### 判決理由 法庭裁定，原告無權根據2018年3月21日的命令，就上訴法庭及終審法院的訟費進行評定，因為這些訟費不屬於第一審彌償金或上訴法庭彌償金的範圍。法庭強調，上訴程序產生的訟費與第一審訴訟的訟費是獨立的。然而，法庭允許原告修改訟費清單以納入根據共同基金基準評定的訴訟訟費，認為這屬於第一審彌償金的範圍。對於支付款項申請，法庭重申公司法基本原則，即公司與股東是獨立法律實體，公司財產不屬於股東，因此駁回按比例直接支付款項予股東的主張。法庭亦指出，其職責並非微觀管理第五被告的資金運用，若有違反BVI命令的疑慮，應由BVI法庭處理。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准原告修改訟費清單，但僅限於增加第27部分（即根據共同基金基準評定的訴訟訟費），而不包括第3A及3B部分（即上訴法庭及終審法院的訟費）。法庭命令將存入法庭的5,000萬港元支付予第五被告。關於訟費，原告須支付第五被告因反對修訂申請而產生的訟費，而原告亦須支付第五被告因支付款項申請而產生的訟費，均以訴訟各方基準評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港公司法的基本原則，即公司與其股東是獨立的法律實體，公司資產不屬於股東，並駁回了在衍生訴訟中按比例直接向股東支付公司款項的主張。此外，判決明確了訟費彌償的範圍，區分了第一審訴訟與上訴程序的訟費，對訟費評定具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: WADDINGTON LIMITED v CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS (陳俊豪) and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Chow J - Date of Judgment: 5 December 2018 ### Factual Background This case involves two summonses before the court. The first is the 5th Defendant's application for payment out of money held in court (the "Payment Out Application"). The second is the Plaintiff's application for leave to amend its Bill of Costs filed on 27 June 2018 (the "Amendment Application"), seeking to include additional costs, specifically those from the Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal proceedings, and costs of the action to be taxed on a common fund basis. These costs relate to indemnities claimed by the Plaintiff against the 5th Defendant. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions were twofold: first, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to amend its Bill of Costs to include costs from the Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal, and costs of the action on a common fund basis. Second, whether the 5th Defendant was entitled to payment out of the money held in court, against which the Plaintiff raised objections, including a claim for pro rata direct recovery by shareholders based on US jurisprudence, and concerns about the 5th Defendant's potential breach of a BVI Order regarding the use of funds. ### Ratio Decidendi The court ruled that the Plaintiff was not entitled to tax costs from the Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal under the March 21, 2018 order, as these fell outside the scope of the First Instance Indemnity and CA Indemnity. The court emphasized that appeal costs are separate from first instance action costs. However, the court allowed the amendment for costs of the action to be taxed on a common fund basis, deeming it within the First Instance Indemnity. For the Payment Out Application, the court reaffirmed the fundamental company law principle that a company and its shareholders are separate legal entities, and company property does not belong to shareholders, thus rejecting the pro rata direct payment argument. The court also stated it would not micro-manage the 5th Defendant's use of funds, suggesting any BVI Order breach concerns should be addressed in the BVI court. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend the 1st Bill of Costs, but only for the addition of Part 27 (costs of the action on a common fund basis), excluding Parts 3A and 3B (Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal costs). An order was made for HK$50 million held in court to be paid out to the 5th Defendant. Regarding costs, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 5th Defendant's costs incurred in resisting the Amendment Application, and also the 5th Defendant's costs of the Payment Out Application, both to be taxed on a party-and-party basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reinforces the fundamental principle of Hong Kong company law that a company is a separate legal entity from its shareholders, and company assets do not belong to shareholders, rejecting direct pro rata distribution in derivative actions. It also clarifies the scope of costs indemnities, distinguishing between first instance and appeal costs, providing guidance for costs taxation. --- ### 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.