破產是否影響訟費支付責任？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Lee Chick Choi v Best Spirits Company Limited - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：關淑馨上訴法庭法官、朱珮瑩上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2015年6月19日 ### 案情摘要 原告人就一宗案件申請逾期上訴許可，但其申請於2015年5月21日被駁回。上訴法庭當時發出了一項臨時訟費命令 (order nisi)，判被告人獲得港幣50,000元的定額訟費，並允許任何一方在七天內申請更改該命令。原告人於2015年5月28日提交書面陳詞，要求更改臨時命令，理由是被告人的書面陳詞逾期提交，且原告人已於2015年5月18日被頒布破產令，因此無力支付任何訟費。被告人未對原告人的陳詞作出回應。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告人提出的兩個理由是否足以更改上訴法庭先前發出的臨時訟費命令。具體而言，爭議點包括：被告人提交書面陳詞是否逾期，以及原告人被頒布破產令是否影響其支付訟費的法律責任。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為原告人提出的所有論點均無實質理據。法庭明確指出，原告人被頒布破產令並不影響其根據法庭命令支付訟費的法律責任。至於被告人如何向破產人的遺產追討訟費，則是被告人自己的事。因此，法庭拒絕更改臨時訟費命令及其下的定額評估。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭維持了原先的臨時訟費命令，即原告人須向被告人支付港幣50,000元的定額訟費。法庭拒絕了原告人更改該命令的申請。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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: Lee Chick Choi v Best Spirits Company Limited - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Kwan JA, Hon Chu JA - Date of Judgment: 19 June 2015 ### Factual Background The plaintiff's summons seeking leave to appeal out of time was dismissed on 21 May 2015. The Court of Appeal issued an order nisi awarding costs to the defendant, assessed on a gross sum basis at HK$50,000, with leave for either party to vary the order within seven days. The plaintiff lodged a written submission on 28 May 2015, seeking to vary the order nisi. His grounds were that the defendant's written submission was served out of time and that a bankruptcy order had been made against him on 18 May 2015, rendering him unable to pay costs. The defendant did not file any reply. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the plaintiff's arguments were sufficient to vary the Court of Appeal's previous order nisi regarding costs. Specifically, the issues included whether the defendant's submission was out of time and whether the plaintiff's bankruptcy order affected his liability to pay costs. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found no substance in any of the plaintiff's contentions. The court explicitly stated that the bankruptcy order made no difference to the plaintiff's liability for costs as ordered by the court. How the defendant would enforce the costs order against the bankrupt's estate was a matter for the defendant. Consequently, the court declined to vary the order nisi or the gross sum assessment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal upheld its original order nisi, requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant HK$50,000 in gross sum costs. The plaintiff's application to vary the order was refused. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.