上訴許可申請的標準？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7月4日 ### 案情摘要 原告Waddington Limited針對第五被告Profit Point Limited（「第五被告」）提出兩項傳票申請，尋求就法院先前作出的兩項命令提出上訴許可。第一項命令是於2018年3月19日作出的「拒絕披露令」(Disclosure-Refusal Order)，駁回原告要求Reed Smith Richards Butler（「RSRB」）進一步披露有關第五被告訟費資助安排的申請。第二項命令是於2018年3月21日作出的「訟費評定令」(Taxation Order)，指示原告就法院先前發出的多項訟費彌償令，對第五被告展開訟費評定程序。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告是否有合理上訴成功機會，以推翻法院拒絕披露第五被告訟費資助方資料的命令，以及推翻法院指示原告對第五被告進行訟費評定的命令。原告認為應有權獲取更多資料以識別實際控制訴訟的幕後方，並質疑法院就彌償訟費評定方式的裁決。 ### 判決理由 法官根據《高等法院條例》(High Court Ordinance) 第14AA條的上訴許可標準，即上訴須有合理成功機會或基於司法公正有其他理由，審查了原告的申請。對於拒絕披露令，法官認為原告已能向資助公司追討非訴訟方訟費，且進一步披露可能導致「附帶訴訟」(satellite litigations)，故駁回申請。對於訟費評定令，法官重申其在先前判決中的理據，認為原告並未提出新論點，因此不認為上訴有合理成功機會。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125，確立了《高等法院條例》第14AA條下上訴許可的標準，即上訴成功機會須「不只是虛無縹緲」，但不必「必然」。此外，法院亦提及 Waddington Limited v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas (HCMP 1326/2017, 18 October 2017) 中上訴法庭對衍生訴訟中公司中立立場的觀點。這些案例影響了法官對上訴許可申請的判斷。 ### 裁決與命令 法官駁回了原告於2018年3月29日提出的兩項傳票申請，即就拒絕披露令及訟費評定令提出上訴許可的申請。原告須支付第五被告的訟費，如未能達成協議，則須進行訟費評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了在衍生訴訟中，法院在處理非訴訟方訟費申請時，會平衡披露的必要性與避免「附帶訴訟」的原則。同時，判決也強調了在評估上訴許可申請時，除非有合理成功機會或司法公正的特殊理由，否則不會輕易給予許可。判決亦確認了衍生訴訟中的公司在涉及其自身利益的非正審申請中，可以不採取中立立場。 --- ### 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: 4 July 2018 ### Factual Background The Plaintiff, Waddington Limited, filed two summonses seeking leave to appeal against two previous orders made by the court concerning the 5th Defendant, Profit Point Limited. The first order, dated 19 March 2018, was a "Disclosure-Refusal Order" dismissing the Plaintiff's application for further disclosure of information and documents by Reed Smith Richards Butler (RSRB) regarding the funding arrangement for the 5th Defendant's costs. The second order, dated 21 March 2018, was a "Taxation Order" directing the Plaintiff to commence and proceed with taxation against the 5th Defendant pursuant to various costs indemnity orders previously made by the court. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were whether the Plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of success in appealing the court's refusal to order further disclosure of information about the 5th Defendant's litigation funders, and whether the Plaintiff had a reasonable prospect of success in appealing the court's direction to proceed with taxation of the 5th Defendant's indemnity costs. The Plaintiff argued for entitlement to more information to identify the real party controlling the litigation and challenged the court's ruling on the method of taxing indemnity costs. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge applied the test for leave to appeal under Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, which requires a reasonable prospect of success or some other reason in the interest of justice. Regarding the Disclosure-Refusal Order, the judge found that the Plaintiff could already pursue non-party costs against the funding companies, and further disclosure risked generating "satellite litigations." For the Taxation Order, the judge reiterated his reasoning from previous decisions, noting that the Plaintiff had not raised new arguments. Consequently, the judge concluded that the intended appeals lacked a reasonable prospect of success. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited SMSE v KL [2009] 4 HKLRD 125, which established the standard for leave to appeal under Section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance, stating that prospects of success must be more than "fanciful" but not necessarily "probable." Additionally, the judgment referred to Waddington Limited v Chan Chun Hoo Thomas (HCMP 1326/2017, 18 October 2017), where the Court of Appeal commented on a company's neutral stance in derivative actions. These precedents informed the judge's analysis of the leave to appeal applications. ### Decision & Orders The judge dismissed both summonses filed by the Plaintiff on 29 March 2018, which sought leave to appeal against the Disclosure-Refusal Order and the Taxation Order. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the 5th Defendant's costs, to be taxed if not agreed. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the court's approach in derivative actions to balance the necessity of disclosure with the principle of avoiding "satellite litigations" when dealing with non-party costs applications. It also underscores that leave to appeal will not be granted unless there is a reasonable prospect of success or compelling reasons in the interest of justice. The decision further confirms that a company in a derivative action is not necessarily required to maintain a neutral stance in interlocutory applications that directly affect its interests. --- ### 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.