(1) 被告人在該傳票中要申請甚麼，被告人並沒有說清楚，究竟被告人是想全案不作訟費命令，還是在他的上訴有結果之前，暫緩執行要他支付訟費予原告人的命令，被告人語焉不詳。
(2) 訟費的一般原則，是根據結果決定訟費，被告人沒有提出任何支持偏離這項一般原則的理由。被告人既然被本席裁定敗訴，他需要承擔本案的訟費，沒有理由全案不作訟費命令。
(3) 被告人沒有提出任何理由，說服本席他的上訴有可以爭論的空間，在此情況下，本席不會暫緩執行在2019年12月17日頒下的命令，包括在當中的訟費命令。
(1) 被告人聲稱沒有收到原告人的傳票，法庭不予信納。原告人存檔了送達該傳票的誓章證據，顯示該傳票已送達予被告人在他的親自行事通知書上的地址。事實上，法庭為了處理這兩張傳票的申請，已經向各方發出多次的指示，從被告人向法庭呈交的書面陳詞中可以看到，被告人是收到法庭的指示。被告人不可能只收到法庭的指示，而收不到原告人的傳票。
(2) 原告人在本案向被告人追討一份貸款協議(Loan Agreement)及一份第二按揭(Second Mortgage)下的欠款。根據第二按揭的條款，被告人有責任向原告人償還貸款協議下的欠款。
(3) 原告人以第二按揭的第22(iii)條(“該條款”)，作為原告人申請更改該暫准命令的基礎，該條款如下
“...all reasonable costs, charges and expenses (including legal expenses on a solicitor and own client basis) incurred in the lawful exercise of the powers hereby or thereby conferred upon the Lender or in connection with any action taken by the Lender in suing for or recovering any sum due from the Mortgagor thereunder or under the Security Document or otherwise sustained or incurred as a consequence of any default by the Mortgagor in the performance of the obligation assumed by it hereunder and the same shall carry interest at a rate ascertained in the accordance with Clause 5.05 hereof from the fourth day after the date of the same being demanded and all such costs, charges expenses and remuneration and all interest thereon shall form part of the Second Indebtedness.”
(4) 李大律師指出，法庭在Yeung Kwok Fan & Anor v Standard Chartered Bank [2001] 4 HKC 486, 492E – I中指出，如與訟方在合約中已就訴訟的訟費達成協議，法庭只會在例外情況下偏離合約的規定：
“The court plainly has by virtue of the statutory provision in s52(A)(1) of the High Court Ordinance, a discretion as to the award of costs. But on a principled basis, where the parties have agreed how that discretion should be exercised, it will only be in an exceptional case that the court could be justified in departing from their own agreement. Plainly such a situation may be encountered if the terms of O 62 r 7of the Rules of the High Court applied or if there is proof of unconscionability as in Hang Seng Credit Card. The width of the remaining ‘gap’ in the discretion, (if any), is far far too narrow for these plaintiffs to pass through.
...While a contract cannot oust the statute, the court will not oust the contract, unless it is driven to that conclusion by some principled impetus. Where there is a contract as to the incidence and nature of costs between the parties, that mutuality will not be undone because the court has some caprice that it could do better distributive justice than the parties themselves have agreed. This type of contractual provision is in many ways the ultimate pre-fettered discretion...”
(5) 李大律師表示，多個案例顯示法庭在與訟方在合約中已就訴訟的訟費作出協議的情況下，會根據合約的條款頒布訟費命令，包括：
a) 在Winlead Limited v Manwell Management Limited (無彙報案例，HCA 3534/2002, 2002年11月25日)的第43段中，原告人根據與訟雙方的合約的規定，要求「律師與當事人」為基準的訟費。鮑晏明法官(當時官階)指出由於與訟雙方已明言追討訟費的基準，故他頒令被告人向原告人支付「律師與當事人」為基準的訟費。
b) 在AXA China Region Insurance Company Limited v Leong Fong Cheng (無彙報案例，HCA 1516/2013, 2016年5月4日)的第58段中，周家明法官頒令被告人須支付原告人的訟費，如雙方未能達成協議則根據雙方的經理資金提供合約 (Manager Financing Agreement) 的規定，以「律師與當事人」為基準評定。
c) 在DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v Sit Pan Jit (無彙報案例，CACV 91/2015, 2016年9月26日)的第19段中，原告人根據與訟雙方的合約的規定，要求被告人支付彌償訟費(indemnity costs)。上訴庭指出原審法官根據合約頒布彌償訟費，並頒令答辯人須支付原告人上訴的訟費，如雙方未能達成協議，則以彌償基準進行評估。
d) 在Leung Po Po and Cheng Kam Chau (Joint Tenants) v Olympic Leader International Limited & Ors (無彙報案例，DCCJ 5004/2003, 2017年3月27日)的第27及33段中，租賃合約 (Tenancy Agreement) 規定租客在業主要求下須向業主支付或賠償及彌償業主因追討租金及/或其他已過期及應支付的款項或因執行業主的權利所產生的所有費用及開支，包括法律費用(以「律師與當事人」為基準)。暫委區域法官陳錦泉(當時官階)裁定該規定適用於第一被告人向第二被告人的分擔款項申索，並頒令相關訟費應以「律師與當事人」基準 (solicitor and own client basis) 支付。
(6) 李大律師表示，原告人在本案支付的訟費(包括申請簡易判決及本更改暫准訟費命令的申請) ，均屬因為被告人未有履行他於第二按揭下的責任而引致原告人需要支付或產生的合理費用、收費及開支，故該條款適用於規定原告人與被告人在本案中的訟費命令。
(7) 本席同意及接納李大律師的陳詞。