基金局訟費與和解權力？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Wo Chun Wah v Chau Kwei Yin and Others - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、列顯倫常任法官、霍兆剛常任法官、施兆棠非常任法官、麥嘉琳非常任法官 - 判決日期：2019年12月20日 ### 案情摘要 原告是一名室內裝修工人，在工作中受傷。他向第二被告（其僱主）提出僱員補償條例 (Employees' Compensation Ordinance, ECO) 和普通法損害賠償訴訟。第二被告沒有保險，且在訴訟中親自應訊。僱員補償援助基金管理局 (Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board, the Board) 獲准加入訴訟作為第三被告，以參與損害賠償評估。原告與管理局就潛在的僱員補償援助條例 (Employees Compensation Assistance Ordinance, ECAO) 索償達成142萬港元的和解。儘管如此，訴訟仍繼續進行，原告最終獲判2,110,927港元的損害賠償。原審法官拒絕判管理局支付訟費，導致原告上訴至上訴法庭，但被駁回。管理局隨後獲終審法院上訴委員會批准上訴，以釐清兩個關鍵法律問題。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議有二：第一，法院是否有司法管轄權命令僱員補償援助基金管理局支付訟費，特別是在管理局根據《僱員補償援助條例》第25A條加入的普通法損害賠償案件中，以及是否存在「慣常命令」或「起點」來處理訟費問題。第二，管理局是否有權在損害賠償金額確定前與原告達成和解，以及此類和解的法律效力為何，特別是當最終判決金額與和解金額不符時。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，《僱員補償援助條例》第20B(3)條並未剝奪法院命令管理局支付訟費的司法管轄權，此權力源自《高等法院條例》第52A條。法院認為，管理局的法定職責是監察和過濾不當索償，而非像普通訴訟方一樣對抗僱員。因此，在管理局妥善履行其「過濾」或監察職能時，訟費的「慣常命令」不適用，適當的起點應是「不作訟費命令」。然而，若管理局的行為不合理或具對抗性，法院仍可行使酌情權命令其支付訟費。此外，法院裁定管理局有權根據《僱員補償援助條例》第29條與索償人達成和解，此和解具有合同約束力，不受後續判決金額的影響。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院駁回管理局的上訴。儘管如此，考慮到管理局的特殊法定角色以及釐清法律立場的必要性，法院初步裁定各方自行承擔訟費，即不作訟費命令。若無進一步陳詞，此命令將成為最終命令。原告的訟費將根據法律援助條例進行評定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決明確了僱員補償援助基金管理局在訴訟中的角色及其在訟費和和解方面的權力。法院強調管理局的「過濾」職能，並確立了在管理局妥善履行職責時，訟費的起點應為「不作訟費命令」，而非傳統的「訟費隨訴訟結果而定」原則。此外，判決確認了管理局有權與索償人達成具有約束力的和解，這有助於鼓勵早期和解並減少訴訟成本，對未來的相關案件具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 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: Wo Chun Wah v Chau Kwei Yin and Others - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Ma CJ, Ribeiro PJ, Fok PJ, Stock NPJ and McLachlin NPJ - Date of Judgment: 20 December 2019 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, an interior decoration worker, sustained injuries at work and brought proceedings against the 2nd defendant (his employer) for compensation under the ECO and for common law damages. The 2nd defendant had no insurance and acted in person. The Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board (the Board) was granted leave to be joined as the 3rd defendant to participate in the assessment of damages. The plaintiff and the Board agreed to settle his potential ECAO claim for HK$1.42 million. Despite this, the trial proceeded, and the plaintiff was awarded HK$2,110,927 in damages. The trial judge refused to order costs against the Board, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed. The Board was subsequently granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by the Appeal Committee to clarify two key legal questions. ### Key Legal Issues The case raised two main issues: First, whether the courts have jurisdiction to make costs orders against the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board, particularly in common law damages claims where the Board joins under section 25A of the ECAO, and if so, whether there is a "usual order" or "starting point" for costs. Second, whether the Board is empowered to enter into binding settlements with a plaintiff on the quantum of relief payment before the amount of damages is known, and what the legal effect of such settlements would be, especially if the final judgment differs from the settlement amount. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that section 20B(3) of the ECAO does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order costs against the Board, with such power being conferred by section 52A of the High Court Ordinance. The court reasoned that the Board's statutory role is to scrutinize and filter unmeritorious claims, not to act as an ordinary litigant against the employee. Therefore, when the Board properly carries out its "filtering" or monitoring functions, the "costs following the event" principle does not apply, and the appropriate starting point should generally be no order as to costs. However, if the Board's conduct is unreasonable or antagonistic, the court may still exercise its discretion to order costs against it. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Board has the power under section 29 of the ECAO to enter into settlement agreements with claimants, and such settlements are contractually binding and unaffected by subsequent judgment amounts. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the Board's appeal. However, considering the Board's special statutory role and the need to clarify the legal position affecting its operations, the court made a provisional order (order nisi) that there be no order as to costs, meaning each party bears its own costs. This order will become absolute in default of further submissions. The plaintiff's costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the role of the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board in litigation and its powers regarding costs and settlements. The court emphasized the Board's "filtering" function and established that when the Board properly performs its duties, the starting point for costs should be "no order as to costs," rather than the traditional "costs following the event" principle. Additionally, the ruling confirms the Board's authority to enter into binding settlements with claimants, which encourages early resolution and reduces litigation costs, providing significant guidance for similar future cases. --- ### 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.