衍生訴訟中訟費彌償的司法管轄權？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：2015年6月12日 ### 案情摘要 本案為一宗多重衍生訴訟 (multiple derivative action)，由Waddington Limited（原告），即彩星集團有限公司（第三被告）的少數股東，代表Profit Point Limited（第五被告）針對第一被告Thomas Chan提起，指控其不當行為。此前，暫委法官潘兆初資深大律師已裁定第五被告勝訴，判處第一被告須支付港幣33,511,220.32元。其後，暫委法官潘兆初資深大律師就利息及訟費作出命令（三月命令），包括第一被告須向法庭支付判決款項及利息，以及第五被告須彌償原告未能從第一被告追討的訟費差額（Shortfall）。原告隨後申請中期付款，要求從第一被告已支付到法庭的款項中撥付港幣23,000,000元，並要求第五被告就上訴訟費提供彌償。第五被告現就暫委法官潘兆初資深大律師就中期付款及上訴彌償的命令（十一月命令）申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於法院是否有司法管轄權 (jurisdiction) 就少數股東提起的衍生訴訟 (derivative action) 作出中期訟費付款命令，以及就上訴訟費提供彌償。第五被告爭辯暫委法官潘兆初資深大律師已無權處理（functus officio），且中期付款金額無法確定。原告則主張法院具有衡平法上的廣泛司法管轄權。 ### 判決理由 法官審視了《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance) 第52A(1)條及相關判例，特別是Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)案中關於少數股東衍生訴訟中彌償訟費的原則。法官認為，法院就少數股東衍生訴訟作出彌償訟費命令的司法管轄權，嚴格來說應基於《高等法院條例》第52A(1)條，但衡平法原則 (equitable principles) 仍將規管該司法管轄權的行使。儘管此問題尚有爭議，但法官認為第五被告就此提出的上訴具有「合理成功機會」(reasonable prospect of success)。至於上訴彌償，法官認為一審法官有權作出相關命令，且全額彌償符合Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2)案的原則，故駁回第五被告就此的上訴許可申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下判例： - Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373：確立了少數股東在衍生訴訟中獲得公司彌償訟費的衡平法原則。 - Financial Secretary v Wong (2003) 6 HKCFAR 476：終審法院指出香港法院判給訟費的司法管轄權是法定性質的，與英國的《1981年最高法院法》(Supreme Court Act 1981) 第51條（等同於香港《高等法院條例》第52A(1)條）一致。 - SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 127：闡明了上訴許可申請中「合理成功機會」的標準，即機會須「不只是虛幻的」(more than “fanciful”) 但不需「很可能」(“probable”)。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭批准第五被告就中期付款命令的上訴許可申請（基於第一項上訴理由）。法庭駁回第五被告就中期付款命令的第二及第三項上訴理由，以及就上訴彌償命令提出的上訴許可申請。原告承諾將來會向第五被告交待並退還從第一被告實際收回的訟費，因此法庭沒有就暫緩執行命令作出裁決。本申請的訟費及2014年12月5日保留的訟費，連同兩名大律師的證明書，均列為第五被告上訴的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了在衍生訴訟中，法院就訟費彌償的司法管轄權雖源於《高等法院條例》第52A(1)條，但其行使仍受衡平法原則規管。判決亦強調了在申請上訴許可時，「合理成功機會」的門檻是「不只是虛幻的」。對於一審法官是否有權就上訴訟費作出彌償命令，本案確認了其司法管轄權，並指出全額彌償符合既有原則。 --- ### 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: 12 June 2015 ### Factual Background This is a multiple derivative action brought by Waddington Limited (the plaintiff), a minority shareholder of Playmates Holdings Limited (the 3rd defendant), on behalf of Profit Point Limited (the 5th defendant) against the 1st defendant, Thomas Chan, for alleged wrongs. Previously, Recorder P Fung SC had ruled in favour of the 5th defendant, ordering the 1st defendant to pay HK$33,511,220.32. Subsequently, Recorder P Fung SC made orders regarding interest and costs (the March Order), including the 1st defendant paying the judgment sum and interest into court, and the 5th defendant indemnifying the plaintiff for any shortfall in costs not recovered from the 1st defendant. The plaintiff then applied for an interim payment of HK$23,000,000 from the sum paid into court by the 1st defendant, and for the 5th defendant to indemnify the plaintiff for appeal costs. The 5th defendant now seeks leave to appeal against the Recorder's orders (the November Order) concerning the interim payment and appeal indemnity. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute is whether the court has jurisdiction to make an interim payment order for costs and an appeal indemnity order in a derivative action brought by a minority shareholder. The 5th defendant argued that the Recorder was functus officio and that the interim payment amount was unascertainable. The plaintiff contended that the court possessed broad equitable jurisdiction. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge examined section 52A(1) of the High Court Ordinance and relevant precedents, particularly the principles from Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) concerning indemnity for costs in minority shareholder derivative actions. The judge held that the court's jurisdiction to make an indemnity costs order in such actions should, strictly speaking, be regarded as based on section 52A(1) of the High Court Ordinance, but equitable principles would continue to govern its exercise. While acknowledging the issue was not free from doubt, the judge found that the 5th defendant's proposed appeal on this ground had a "reasonable prospect of success." Regarding the appeal indemnity, the judge found that the first instance judge had the power to make such an order, and a full indemnity was consistent with the principles in Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2). Therefore, the 5th defendant's application for leave to appeal on this point was dismissed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case primarily cited the following precedents: - Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975] 1 QB 373: Established the equitable principles for a minority shareholder to be indemnified for costs by the company in a derivative action. - Financial Secretary v Wong (2003) 6 HKCFAR 476: The Court of Final Appeal held that the Hong Kong court's jurisdiction to award costs is statutory, mirroring section 51 of the UK Supreme Court Act 1981 (equivalent to section 52A(1) of the High Court Ordinance). - SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 127: Clarified the standard of "reasonable prospect of success" for leave to appeal applications, meaning more than "fanciful" but not necessarily "probable." ### Decision & Orders The court granted the 5th defendant leave to appeal on Ground 1 concerning the interim payment order. The court dismissed the 5th defendant's Grounds 2 and 3 regarding the interim payment, and the application for leave to appeal against the appeal indemnity order. The plaintiff undertook to account to the 5th defendant and repay any costs actually recovered from the 1st defendant, thus no order was made on the stay of execution application. Costs of this application and those reserved from 5 December 2014, with certificate for two counsel, were ordered to be in the cause of the 5th defendant's appeal. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that while the court's jurisdiction for costs indemnity in derivative actions stems from section 52A(1) of the High Court Ordinance, its exercise remains governed by equitable principles. It also reiterates that the threshold for "reasonable prospect of success" in leave to appeal applications is "more than fanciful." The court confirmed the first instance judge's jurisdiction to order indemnity for appeal costs, noting that a full indemnity aligns with established principles. --- ### 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.