非訴訟方訟費命令的披露範圍？申請駁回

### 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3月19日 ### 案情摘要 原告Waddington Limited針對第五被告Profit Point Limited的律師行Reed Smith Richards Butler (RSRB) 提出申請，要求披露更多關於第五被告訴訟費用資助安排的資料和文件。此前，原告已獲悉第三被告Playmates Holdings Limited是第五被告訴訟費用的實際資助者，並透過其全資附屬公司PIL Finance Limited和Belmont Limited提供貸款。原告認為這些披露不足以識別「真正的個人」，即陳俊豪先生，作為非訴訟方訟費命令 (non-party costs order) 的目標，因為原告懷疑陳俊豪先生是幕後操控者，並可能涉及違反受信責任 (fiduciary duties)。原告因此提出第三次披露申請，要求RSRB提供更詳細的資助協議、付款詳情、指示來源等資料。同時，原告亦申請引入關於英屬維爾京群島 (BVI) 法律的專家證據，以證明第五被告在訴訟中的行為違反了BVI法院命令。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於： 1. 原告是否有權要求律師行RSRB進一步披露第五被告訴訟費用資助安排的資料，以識別「真正的個人」作為非訴訟方訟費命令的目標？ 2. 法院在何種情況下應行使酌情權，命令律師行披露此類資料？ 3. 原告是否應獲准延遲提交關於BVI法律的專家證據，以支持其論點？ 第五被告反對披露，認為原告已獲得足夠資料，且其申請旨在追究違反受信責任，而非單純追討訟費。第五被告亦反對引入專家證據，指其提交過晚且不構成「特殊情況」。 ### 判決理由 法官駁回原告的披露申請，理由是《高等法院條例》第52A(2)條關於非訴訟方訟費命令的主要目的是「訟費追討」 (costs recovery)，而非用於收集證據以追究違反受信責任的投訴。法官認為，原告已獲悉第三被告是實際資助者，並可針對其提出申請，這已足以保障原告的訟費立場。法官強調，允許將第52A(2)條用於附帶目的（如追究受信責任）會導致「附屬訴訟」 (satellite litigations)，這與民事司法改革 (CJR) 的目標相悖。法官亦指出，即使陳俊豪先生控制第三被告和第五被告，這不代表他須個人承擔公司的訟費責任。對於專家證據申請，法官認為原告延遲提交，且不構成「特殊情況」，故不予批准。即使接納專家證據，其內容亦不影響法院在披露申請上的酌情權行使，因為第五被告在涉及自身利益的非主要訴訟申請中採取立場並無不當。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例，以闡明法院在非訴訟方訟費命令方面的酌情權原則： - Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School [2009] 6 Costs LR 859：Blake J 總結了法院在考慮是否命令披露資料以支持非訴訟方訟費申請時應考慮的因素。 - Flatman v Germany [2013] 1 WLR 2676：Leveson LJ 批准引用 Thomson 案的原則。 - To Pui Kui v Ng Oi Che, CACV 67 & 156/2014：闡明法院可對訴訟資助者、控制訴訟者或對訴訟結果有實際利益者發出非訴訟方訟費命令。 - Chiu Tak Kwong v Tan Yufang [2010] 5 HKLRD 718：確認法院可對非訴訟方發出訟費命令的原則。 此外，判決還引用了《高等法院條例》第52A(2)條，作為法院發出非訴訟方訟費命令的法定依據。 ### 裁決與命令 法院駁回原告於2017年3月14日提出的第三次披露申請，以及於2017年11月10日提出的專家證據申請。原告須支付第五被告的訟費，費用將在未達成協議的情況下進行評定，並發出兩名大律師的證明書。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了非訴訟方訟費命令的「訟費追討」目的，而非作為調查或追究違反受信責任的工具。法院強調避免「附屬訴訟」，並指出公司控制人一般不應自動承擔公司的訟費責任。此外，法院確認公司在衍生訴訟中對影響自身利益的非主要申請採取非中立立場是合理的，這與其在主要訴訟中應保持中立的原則不同。判決也提醒申請人應及時提交證據，避免不必要的延遲。 --- ### 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: 19 March 2018 ### Factual Background The Plaintiff, Waddington Limited, applied against Reed Smith Richards Butler (RSRB), the solicitors for the 5th Defendant Profit Point Limited, seeking further disclosure of information and documents regarding the funding arrangements for the 5th Defendant's litigation costs. Previously, the Plaintiff had been informed that the 3rd Defendant, Playmates Holdings Limited, was the actual funder of the 5th Defendant's costs, providing loans through its wholly-owned subsidiaries PIL Finance Limited and Belmont Limited. The Plaintiff argued that this disclosure was insufficient to identify the "real individuals," specifically Mr. Thomas Chan, as the target for a non-party costs order, suspecting him to be the orchestrator behind the scenes and potentially involved in breaches of fiduciary duties. The Plaintiff therefore filed a Third Disclosure Application, requesting RSRB to provide more detailed information on funding agreements, payment specifics, and sources of instructions. Concurrently, the Plaintiff sought leave to adduce expert evidence on BVI law to argue that the 5th Defendant's conduct in the litigation violated a BVI Court Order. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in this case were: 1. Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to compel RSRB to disclose further information about the 5th Defendant's litigation funding arrangements to identify "real individuals" for a non-party costs order. 2. Under what circumstances should the court exercise its discretion to order solicitors to disclose such information? 3. Whether the Plaintiff should be granted leave to adduce expert evidence on BVI law at a late stage to support its arguments. The 5th Defendant opposed the disclosure, arguing that the Plaintiff had sufficient information and that the application was an attempt to pursue breaches of fiduciary duties rather than merely recovering costs. The 5th Defendant also resisted the expert evidence application, citing its lateness and lack of "exceptional circumstances." ### Ratio Decidendi The judge dismissed the Plaintiff's disclosure application, reasoning that the primary purpose of Section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance, concerning non-party costs orders, is "costs recovery," not to gather evidence for pursuing complaints of breach of fiduciary duties. The judge found that the Plaintiff had already identified the 3rd Defendant as the actual funder and could pursue an application against it, which was sufficient to protect the Plaintiff's position regarding costs. The judge emphasized that allowing Section 52A(2) to be used for collateral purposes (such as pursuing fiduciary duty breaches) would lead to "satellite litigations," contrary to the objectives of Civil Justice Reform (CJR). The judge also noted that even if Mr. Thomas Chan controlled the 3rd and 5th Defendants, it does not automatically mean he should be personally liable for the companies' costs. Regarding the expert evidence application, the judge found the Plaintiff's delay in submission unacceptable and that no "exceptional circumstances" existed. Even if the expert evidence were admitted, its content would not affect the court's discretion on the disclosure application, as the 5th Defendant's stance in interlocutory applications affecting its own interests was not improper. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following cases were cited to clarify the principles governing the court's discretion in making non-party costs orders: - Thomson v Berkhamsted Collegiate School [2009] 6 Costs LR 859: Blake J summarized factors relevant to the court's discretion when considering disclosure for non-party costs applications. - Flatman v Germany [2013] 1 WLR 2676: Leveson LJ approved the principles from Thomson. - To Pui Kui v Ng Oi Che, CACV 67 & 156/2014: Clarified that a non-party costs order can be made against a funder, controller of litigation, or a person with a real interest in the outcome. - Chiu Tak Kwong v Tan Yufang [2010] 5 HKLRD 718: Confirmed the principles for making costs orders against non-parties. Additionally, Section 52A(2) of the High Court Ordinance was cited as the statutory basis for the court's power to make non-party costs orders. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the Plaintiff's Third Disclosure Application dated 14 March 2017 and the Expert Evidence Application dated 10 November 2017. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 5th Defendant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for two counsel. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that the purpose of a non-party costs order is "costs recovery," not to serve as a tool for investigation or pursuing breaches of fiduciary duties. The court emphasized avoiding "satellite litigations" and noted that company controllers are not automatically liable for the company's litigation costs. Furthermore, the judgment confirmed that a company in a derivative action is reasonably entitled to take a non-neutral stance in interlocutory applications that directly affect its interests, distinguishing this from its expected neutral position in the main action. The decision also serves as a reminder for applicants to submit evidence in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary delays. --- ### 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.