Case Document

100%

LDBM 273/2011

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2011年第273宗

_______________

	Sino Estates Management Limited	申請人
	及
	Leung Wai Piu	答辯人

______________

主審法官﹕ 土地審裁處葛倩兒暫委法官

聆訊日期﹕ 2013年10月9日

答辯人書面陳詞存檔日期: 2013年10月23日

訟費判決書日期﹕ 2013年11月25日

訟費判決書

背景事實

1.本案的申請人為位於香港青山灣黃金海岸(“該屋苑”)的管理公司(“申請人”)；而答辯人為該屋苑3座其中一單位的登記業主 (“答辯人”)。

2.本案涉及申請人向答辯人追討欠付維修費的申請；而答辯人亦作出反申索，要求申請人退還兩期外牆維修費，及因維修造成漏水作出損害賠償。

3.申請人在2012年12月12日提出非正審申請(“該非正審申請”)，要求法庭批准逾時提交一批合共174頁的文件證供 (“該文件”)，該文件為答辯人要求申請人在本案中披露的，本席頒令申請人在2012年12月11日或之前存檔及派送，唯申請人在2012年12月10日只存檔了兩頁紙的證人陳述書，當中羅列了各項欲提交的文件，卻未有存檔該文件，申請人解釋是因為審裁處的會計部在收取費用後，只收取了該兩頁證人陳述書，而並沒有收取該文件。答辯人就該非正審申請提出反對，指申請人發假誓，明明是蓄意不提交卻誣陷審裁處職員拒絕接收該文件，妨礙司法公正，故此不應再給予機會存檔該文件。

4.申請人在2013年8月29日的聆訊上，要求撤回該非正審申請，原因為該文件並非申請人在本案中所依賴的證供，而只是答辯人要求提供，既然答辯人反對，申請人可將文件提供予答辯人，而無需要求存檔。法庭批准申請人撤回該非正審申請，申請人同意須承擔該非正審申請的訟費，故此本席頒令申請人須付答辯人就該非正審申請的訟費，及就訟費作簡易程序評定。

5.答辯人在2013年9月24日存檔了訟費陳述書，本席在2013年10月9日聽取了雙方就訟費的陳述，亦容許答辯人在2013年10月23日存檔書面回覆陳詞，這是本席就該非正審申請訟費的判決。

訟費評定基準

6.答辯人指稱，鑑於申請人在本案中的行為構成欺詐及妨礙司法公正，有明顯及確鑿的證據證明申請人存心濫用司法程序，故此理應以懲罰性罰則處理該非正審申請的訟費，令申請人賠償答辯人的一切時間及金錢上的損失，包括他本人在旅遊及公幹期間為案件操勞及處理本案來回審裁處在交通上的時間。答辯人提交了一份9頁的訟費陳述書，羅列了所有要求的訟費項目及所花費時間。

7.從答辯人的陳述，可見他基本上是要求法庭按彌償基準(indemnity basis) 評定該非正審申請的訟費，根據高等法院規則第62號命令第28(4A)條，讓他可獲得所有為處理該非正審申請所涉及的訟費。

8.就彌償基準評定訟費的考慮，Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No 2) [2004] 7 HKCFAR 114 一案中，有以下說法﹕

“12. Order 62 r.28(3) is to be seen in the context of s.52A of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4), which provides that:

‘…the Court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid.’

The court therefore has a broad discretion to determine how costs shall be paid and whether indemnity costs should be ordered.

…

15. Chu J rightly recognised that the existence of such difference between an indemnity award and a party and party award is not on its own a sufficient basis for awarding indemnity costs. Indeed, the courts in this jurisdiction have repeatedly emphasised, correctly in our view, that the successful party should show, in order to obtain an order for costs on an indemnity basis, that the case has some “special or unusual feature” (Overseas Trust Bank Ltd v Coopers & Lybrand (a firm) & Others [1991] 1 HKLR 177 at p.182J, per Godfrey J; Sung Koo Kee Ltd v Pak Lik Co (a firm) [1996] 3 HKC 570 at p.575C-D).

16. The courts have rejected the proposition that an award of indemnity costs will only be made where a case has been brought with an ulterior motive or for an improper purpose or where there is some deception or underhand conduct on the part of the losing party. (Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (unrep., 10 December 1993) (Millett J); Disney v Plummer, (unrep., English Court of Appeal, 16 November 1987)). These decisions and the reasoning on which they were based have been endorsed by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal (Sung Foo Kee Ltd v Pak Lik Co. (a firm) [1996] 3 HKC 570 at pp.575E-576F, per Godfrey JA; see also Choy Yee Chun v Bond Star Development Ltd [1997] HKLRD 1327 at pp.1334G-1335I, per Stock J.)

17. In these and other cases, courts have emphasised the undesirability of attempting to define the circumstances in which orders for indemnity costs are to be made. It has been said that:

‘… the discretion is not to be fettered or circumscribed beyond the requirement that taxation on an indemnity basis must be “appropriate”.’

(Macmillan Inc v Bishopsgate Investment Trust Plc (unrep., 10 December 1993), per Millett J; Sung Foo Kee Ltd v Pak Lik Co (a firm) [1996] 3 HKC 570 at pp.575E-576F, per Godfrey JA; see also Choy Yee Chun v Bond Star Development Ltd [1997] HKLRD 1327 at pp.1334G-1335I, per Stock J).

18. Neither statements of principle nor authority provide any support for the Board’s proposition that the attributes of the parties and the character of the proceedings are irrelevant to the exercise of the discretion to award indemnity costs. In relation to the award of costs generally, it has been accepted, as Chu J pointed out, that while

‘… the grounds [upon which costs are awarded] must be connected with the case. This may extend to any matter relating to the litigation and the parties’ conduct in it, and also to the circumstances leading to the litigation, but no further.’ (Emphasis added.)

(Scherer v Counting Instruments Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 615 at p.621F, per Buckley LJ). There is no reason why this statement does not apply with equal force to the exercise of the discretion to award indemnity costs.”

9.上文引述的判決意思為,法庭有酌情權決定如何判決訟費，而以彌償基準計算的訟費, 並不限於心懷不軌而提出的訴訟, 或敗訴一方有欺詐或不光彩行為的訴訟，不過申請人須證明案件有特殊或不尋常的現象。法庭無需界定在甚麼情況下判決彌償基準的訟費，只要判決該基準是合宜的，則法庭的酌情權不應受到規範。

10.本席認為，答辯人未能證明該非正審申請，存在任何特殊或不尋常的現象，足以支持應以彌償基準評定本申請的訟費。

11.本訟費評定的聆訊，涉及的是該非正審申請的訟費，而並非本案中的訟費，故此答辯人以申請人一直以來，及在提出本案之前的行為，作支持其要求彌償基準評定訟費並不洽當，本席認為兩者不能混為一談。

12.只針對該非正審申請而言，從上文的背景事實可見，答辯人指控申請人心存不軌，蓄意不將該文件存檔，故而需提出該非正審申請作補救，答辯人反對該非正審申請，並堅持在處理該非正審申請的過程中，查究申請人的證人是否存在發假誓、欺詐的行為，本席認為答辯人所指不能成立，申請人提出該非正審申請，實在與蓄意不提交該文件背道而馳。

13.誠如本席在許可申請中止該非正審申請時指出，中止該非正審申請對答辯人並無不公，答辯人亦不應堅持利用該非正審申請的審理，讓他有機會追查申請人公司代表的欺詐行為，該非正審申請的重點是應否讓申請人提交該文件，重點應為是否會對答辯人造成不公，而非就答辯人的指控對申請人公司代表作定罪。

14.本席裁斷，就該非正審申請的訟費，應以按訴訟各方對評基準評定(party and party basis)，即答辯人可獲付的訟費應是所有為秉行公正或為強制執行或維護其權利而屬必要或恰當的訟費 (見《高等法院規則》第62號命令第28(2)條規則)。

訟費數額評定

15.就訟費的數額方面，本席頒令以簡易程序評定。上訴庭在Poon Shu Fan v Wong Tin Yan [2012] 5 HKLRD 512一案中，列出關於簡易程序評估的法律原則。本席採立該案的兩點摘要﹕-

“(a) As in an ordinary taxation, under Order 62, rule 28(2) the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) (the RHC), in a summary assessment, party-and-party costs were allowed only if they were “necessary or proper” for the attainment of justice or for enforcing or the defending the rights of the receiving party. Pursuant to the Practice Direction 14.3, the court adopted a board-brush approach to ensure the final figure assessed was not disproportionate and/or unreasonable having regard to the nature and circumstances of the application or matter and underlying objectives stated in Order 1A of the RHC, even if there was no challenge to individual items.

(b) A summary assessment required is a two-stage approach. If total costs claim appear proportionate, then all that was normally required was that each item should have been reasonably incurred and the costs reasonable. If the over-all costs appeared disproportionate, then the court would have to be satisfied that each item was necessary and the cost was reasonable. A sensible standard of necessity should be adopted allowing fully for the different judgments which those responsible for litigation would sensibly come to as to what as required. While the threshold was higher than that of reasonableness, it should be achievable by the competent practitioner without undue difficulty. The conduct of the other party was relevant, since cooperative party to reduce costs, but an uncooperative party would render necessary costs which would otherwise be unnecessary.”

16.基於以上的判定，在簡易評定訟費時，法庭會採取一般宏觀的態度考慮申索的訟費數額是否與整案相稱。所以，上訴庭也指出，如訟費總額與申索的案情或論點，並無不相稱，餘下的考慮只是個別項目是否合理。若訟費額與申索並不相稱，法庭則會考慮每一項支出是否必要，而考慮必要的標準是“必要或洽當”的標準。

17.答辯人在所提交的訟費陳述書中，要求為數 39,810元的訟費數額，本席認為這訟費數額與該非正審申請並不相稱，該非正審申請只為一個簡單及普通的申請，並不涉及任何艱深或複雜的爭議事宜。在細閱該訟費陳述書後，本席認為有以下項目並非必要或洽當。

交通時間

18.縱使答辯人延聘律師代表他辦理訴訟，訟費評定官准予的訟費亦不包括律師從辦公室往返法庭的舟車時間及在法庭的等候時間。這些屬不可索回的費用。根據《高等法院規則》第62號命令第28A(1)條規則，沒有律師代表的訴訟人也不會獲准予這些訟費。

覆核申請的訟費

19.答辯人在訟費陳述書中，包含了由答辯人在2013年6月13日所提出的覆核申請的訟費，該覆核申請最終被法庭撤銷，本席看不到任何理據，需要申請人為答辯人所提出的不成功的覆核申請承擔訟費。

在2012年12月18日之前的訟費項目

20.答辯人訟費陳述書中指稱，他在2012年12月18日的聆訊上，才獲知申請人提出了該非正審申請，而只在2012年12月20日才從執達吏手上收到該非正審申請的文件，故此在這日期前的開支使費，不可能是因為該非正審申請而衍生的，在這情況下，答辯人不應將之計算在該非正審申請的訟費中。

助手的協助

21.答辯人在訟費陳述書中，包含了他的助手(一名或兩名不等)協助他處理該非正審申請的時間。根據2013年版《香港民事程序》第1冊第62/App/21段所述，律師的收費就每一項工作而言，只限一位律師的收費，故此答辯人無權在他本人的訟費外，還要求其助手所花費時間的訟費。

聆訊的錄音紀錄

22.答辯人就該非正審申請的多次聆訊，也向法庭要求錄音光碟，本席認為這並非必要的，答辯人每次也親自出席了聆訊，本席亦容許他的助手從旁協助，實在看不到為何還需拿取這些法庭錄音紀錄。