李陳鄭律師行 訴 翁美春

HCA4594/2002

香港特別行政區

高等法院

原訟法庭

民事訴訟2002年第4594號

判案書

1.  今日嘅上訴係本案嘅被告人翁美春小姐，就何聆案官喺2003年7月8日就訟費方面作出嘅一個頒令提出上訴。較早前，本席曾經喺翁小姐缺席嘅情況下撤銷上訴，但係及後經翁小姐解釋缺席因由後，本席喺原告人方面冇反對嘅情況底下，批准呢個聆訊重新展開。因此，今日係重新就呢個上訴作出聆訊。

2.  何聆案官嘅訟費命令係針對原告人嘅一項申請而作出，原告人嘅申請係喺2003年4月22日以傳票要求法庭頒令，根據第18號命令第19條，包括有關被告人嘅反申索係不能披露合理嘅訴訟因由，以及第18號第19條裡面嘅其他理據，要求剔除被告人方面嘅反申索。

3.  有關被告人嘅反申索喺當其時只係得一段，內容如下：

“In breach of the plaintiff’s duty, as solicitors for the defendant in the District Court Action No. 15756 of 2000, the plaintiff failed to exercise due care or diligence in the conduct of the action.  As a result the defendant has suffered losses and/or damages.  The defendants hold and/or claim the plaintiff liable on a full indemnity basis for all her losses and damages.”

4.  喺發出有關傳票之前，即係喺2003年4月22號之前，原告嘅律師樓喺2003年4月3號曾經寫信畀被告人，內容如下：

“We refer to your defence and counterclaim dated 17 February 2003.  We note that you have not pleaded in your counterclaim any material facts on which you rely.  In the circumstances your counterclaim discloses no reasonable cause of action.  We hereby give you notice that unless you should, before 11 April 2003, amend your counterclaim by pleading all material facts on which you rely, we will apply for a strike-out of your counterclaim, pursuant to Order 18, rule 19 of the Rules of High Court, without further notice.”

5.  被告人方面嘅回應係喺2003年4月11日嘅信件，內容如下：

“I refer to your letter dated 4 April 2003, requesting further particulars of my counterclaim.  As I am still waiting for your reply to my request for further and better particulars of your statement of claim, I shall furnish further particulars at the same time when you provide me your reply.”

6.  原告認為被告人方面呢個答覆唔滿意，所以就發出有關嘅傳票，並且準備一個有關嘅陳詞大綱。根據雙方嘅來往信件顯示，喺2003年4月30日曾經有一個聆訊，有關嘅性質似乎係一個call over嘅聆訊。喺當其時，原告將有關支持佢哋呢個剔除申請嘅陳詞大綱交咗畀被告人。及後，被告人方面同意修改佢嘅答辯書，加入相關嘅詳情，所以聆案官不就反申索書作出剔除，但聆案官頒令被告人方面要負責原告人方面嘅訟費，並且根據第62號命令第9條嘅權力，將訟費訂於港幣12,000元，今日嘅上訴就係針對聆案官呢一個訟費方面嘅命令。

7.  要考慮訟費方面嘅命令是否妥當或者恰當，本席認為應該考慮就呢項申請雙方有關嘅行為。喺今日嘅聆訊裡面，代表被告人嘅鄭律師指稱，呢個剔除申請就呢個反申索方面，其實係應該可以根據第18號命令第19條第1(a)款，即以有關嘅狀紙不能披露任何合理嘅訴訟因由為基礎嚟到剔除。本席不同意呢個論點，本席認為被告人喺原本嘅反申索書裡面嘅第六段已經披露咗一個合理嘅訴訟因由。雖然被告人方面事實上並沒有披露詳細嘅情況，但係一啲骨幹嘅事實經已敘述，被告人方面反申索原告人嘅根據係基於下列幾點：

第一，原告人曾經係作為被告人嘅代表律師，喺區域法院案件2000年15756宗處理被告人嘅案件；

第二，喺處理該案件嘅過程中，原告人並沒有盡佢嘅律師方面應有嘅責任；

第三，因為原告人呢一方面嘅違反佢律師應有嘅責任，引致被告人蒙受損失。

8.  呢啲都係將一啲事實嘅根據提咗出嚟，而好明顯地，呢個係可以構成一個合理嘅訴訟因由。所以，本席不同意鄭律師嘅陳詞話喺第六段裡面，被告人嘅反申索並沒有提出一啲事實嘅根據。所以，如果呢個申請係根據第18號命令第19條第1(a)款考慮，係完全不可能成功。

9.  喺呢一方面，翁小姐引用Chun Lee Engineering v. Aoki Corporation，Civil Appeal 71/1991 31 December 1991。在該案中，上訴庭亦都同意同樣嘅處理方式同埋分析，詳情可以睇有關判詞嘅第15頁，當上訴庭同意原審法官喺處理剔除申請就沒有披露合理因由呢一個理據方面嘅考慮。引用另外一件案例，就係Wharf Properties v. Eric Cumming Associate呢件案例。上訴庭喺Chun Lee Engineering一案裡面同意原審法官嘅分析，認為喺一啲同本案類似嘅情況底下，有關嘅狀紙係唔可以因為沒有披露合理訴訟因由為基礎嚟到去剔除，但係呢個唔代表有關剔除申請喺第18號命令第19條第1款嘅其他理據底下不能成功。

10.  喺Chun Lee Engineering一案裡面，原審法官亦都係要考慮一個冇充分詳情披露喺狀紙裡面嘅反申索。而喺該案裡面，原審法官拒絕剔除有關嘅反申索，雖然原審法官認為嗰個狀紙係冇按照法庭呢個程序裡面嘅要求，將有關嘅詳情係披露出嚟。

11.  原審法官喺Chun Lee Engineering一案裡面拒絕剔除有關反申索嘅理據，係紀錄喺上訴庭嘅判詞第15至到第16頁。喺該案裡面，原審法官認為雖然喺該案裡面嘅反申索係缺乏有關嘅詳情，而有關詳情係需要嘅，因為如果冇嗰啲詳細嘅陳述，係會引致有關嘅狀書係對訴訟嘅另一方構成一個尷尬或者係濫用司法程序嘅情況。但係原審法官認為法庭不應該行使酌情權剔除有關嘅反申索，佢嘅理由主要係基於第一，喺嗰件案件裡面有關嘅原告人並沒有提出要求被告人披露更詳盡資料：

“I would be loathe to strike out a claim which can be further particularised if necessary.  I certainly see Mr Lewis’s approach, because he made the point that the defendants have said in terms that they cannot give particulars prior to discovery, but in my judgment it is not enough for the plaintiff to refuse to ask for particulars, refuse to try and pin the defendants down and then come along and say that this ought to be struck out as being embarrassing or an abuse of process due to his lack of particularity.  As the counterclaim stands, at the moment it is embarrassing and is an abuse of the process.”

12.  跟住原審法官有以下的說法：

“If the defendants had failed or refused to supply these particulars, I would have been inclined to strike out the counterclaim.  I do not propose to strike out the counterclaim without first giving the defendants an opportunity to amend by dealing with the matters to which I have adverted.”

13.  就喺該案嘅原訴人係咪應該一定要係要求呢個詳細嘅資料，然之後先做一個剔除嘅申請，喺該案嘅原審法官有咁樣嘅講法：

“Mr Barlow submitted that a request for particulars is what ought to have happened before the strike-out summons was taken out.  The fact remains that the counterclaim was an abuse of process, being totally unparticularised when such information must have been at hand and was being used to attempt to defeat the claim for summary judgment.  Parties have now decided to deal with the matter by way of further and better particulars.  Taking all these matters into account and in the exercise of my discretion, it seems to me that justice or the situation requires for there to be no order as to costs as to this part of the summons.”

14.  綜合嚟講，本席認為喺該案裡面，原審法官並沒有硬性規定就詳情不足嘅狀紙，對方必須經過要求詳情嘅程序，如果呢個程序係不能達到目的，然後先可以作出一個剔除嘅申請。

15.  但係另一方面，法庭係可以考慮呢啲事宜嚟去決定有關訟費方面嘅頒令。本席特別留意到喺該案當中，原審法官頒令雙方各自負責自己嘅訟費。喺呢一方面，呢個原則其實喺上訴庭嘅判詞裡面亦都反映出嚟。喺上訴嘅階段，有關嘅上訴只係針對訟費方面嘅頒令，上訴庭係維持原審法官就訟費方面嘅判決，呢個係可以喺上訴庭嘅判詞第17頁裡面睇到。但係喺維持訟費方面嘅判決同時，上訴庭亦都特別有明確指出，喺該案嘅案情底下，上訴庭認為該案嘅原告人係有權做呢個剔除嘅申請，呢個可以睇番上訴庭第17至到18頁裡面嘅評語。特別喺第18頁，上訴庭說明，雖然喺該案裡面嘅上訴並沒有就法官不作剔除呢個頒令作任何嘅上訴，而有關嘅上訴只是局限喺呢個訴訟費方面。但係上訴庭亦特別聲明，係喺維持原審法官就訟費方面嘅判決嘅時候，上訴庭嘅立場如下：

“We do not intend to appear to be accepting that it would not have been open to the judge to strike out the counterclaim as a thoroughly embarrassing pleading, deliberately served as such, which was an abuse of the process which the defendant intended to maintain until completion of discovery by impliedly refusing to give particulars before that event.  On this basis, it seemed to us that the plaintiff was not to be thwarted for applying to strike out without first applying for further and better particulars.  We do not consider that said in the Wharf case militates against this proposition.  In that case, Lord Oliver observed at page 166 F:

‘It is for the plaintiff in an action to formulate its claim in an intelligible form and it does not lie in its mouth to assert that it is impossible for him to formulate it and that it should therefore be allowed to continue unspecified in the hope that when it comes to trial he maybe able to reconstitute his case and make good what he then feels able to plead and substantiate.’

In the present case, the defendant was deliberately arrogating to himself the right to rely on an embarrassing pleading until discovery had been completed, not with the genuine intention of obtaining undisclosed material not in its possession, but to suit its own convenience or that of its lawyers.  This will not do and unless and until the defendant manifests willingness to furnish particulars before completion of discovery, it was open to the judge to strike out the counterclaim.”

16.  所以本席認為有關原則如下：

第一，雖然另一方並未有提出呢個further and better particulars方面嘅申請。法庭絕對有權就一個冇足夠詳情嘅狀紙，根據第18號命令第19條第1款裡面嘅理據，以有關狀紙構成尷尬為理由，或以濫用司法程序為理由，去剔除有關嘅狀紙。

第二，喺考慮應唔應該行使有關嘅酌情權嘅時候，法庭會考慮傳檔尷尬嘅狀紙嗰一方，係咪有特別嘅企圖或者別有用心，例如好似喺Chun Lee Engineering一案裡面，有關嘅被告人就係想利用一個尷尬嘅狀紙或者尷尬及含糊不清嘅反申索，去阻止或阻礙原告人方面要求簡易程序判決嘅申請。

第三，法庭亦會考慮傳檔尷尬狀紙一方是否有意圖或者意願去提供有關嘅詳細資料。

第四，喺決定呢個訟費問題嘅時候，法庭亦都可以考慮雙方喺上述方面嘅立場及在訴訟過程裡面嘅行為。

17.  睇番本案嘅案情，原本嘅反申索雖然正如本席較早前分析，裡面已經提出一啲事實嘅根據，但係本席認為有關嘅事實根據並未列出所有相關嘅關鍵事實，所以表面上嚟睇，被告人方面嘅狀紙係有構成尷尬嘅情況。例如雖然喺第六段裡面，被告人提出原告人係並冇盡到佢哋律師方面應有嘅責任，或者係冇喺處理區域法院案件裡面，達到一個合理律師嘅水準去處理有關嘅案件，但係被告人並未有喺呢個狀紙裡面披露被告人聲稱原告人係喺邊一方面係不足。所以表面上嚟睇，有關嘅反申索係有一個尷尬嘅情況。但係另一方面，呢件案有其獨特嘅地方：

第一，原告人事實上係好清楚知道被告人方面投訴佢哋嘅主要因由及她喺反申索裡面聲稱話原告人疏忽嘅地方係指甚麼。原告人喺另外一次聆案官嘅聆訊當中，曾經係透過佢哋嘅律師向鄺聆案官承認，佢哋大致上係知道對方話佢哋疏忽嘅地方係乜嘢。呢一個亦都唔出奇，因為被告人曾就有關嘅區域案件嘅處理向律師會作出投訴，而裡面亦都有列出被告人認為原告人失職嘅地方。而喺今日嘅聆訊裡面，代表原告人嘅鄭律師亦都向法庭表示，佢哋大致上係知道被告人方面反申索嘅理據。好明顯，睇番有關嘅資料，被告人嘅反申索唔係一個無理嘅索償，係有具體嘅事實支持。當然至於索償是否成功係一個尚待爭辯嘅事宜，本席在呢個階段不可以作出一啲具體嘅評論。但係好明顯地，有關嘅反申索唔係一項無理纏擾嘅訴訟。

第二點，喺2003年4月11日嘅信件裡面，被告人已經向原告人表示，佢係願意畀有關嘅詳細資料，雖然佢訂嘅時間可能唔係一個合適嘅時間，因為佢將佢畀呢個詳情嘅資料係串連原告人畀佢哋嘅資料嘅時間，而被告人嘅責任係去就佢嘅狀紙嘅準備係應該符合有關法律程序嘅要求，所以佢唔應該用呢個理由去將佢畀詳情嘅時間去拖延。當然，如果佢有充分嘅理據，覺得佢係需要較多時間去準備佢嘅詳情，佢可以向法庭申請，法庭亦都會考慮嗰個理據而決定畀唔畀呢個伸延個時限畀佢。但係無論如何，2003年4月11日嘅信件係反映咗被告人方面係願意畀更詳盡嘅資料。

18.  當然，本上訴只是針對一個訟費方面嘅頒令，而雖然呢個係聆案官嘅訟費頒令，但係法庭亦都有案例講過喺呢一方面嘅上訴，法庭必須認為聆案官嘅頒令係違反一啲既定原則，或者係冇考慮到一啲應該考慮嘅事宜，或者係明顯錯誤嘅情況，或者考慮咗一啲不應考慮嘅事宜，上訴庭才有權推翻原本嘅頒令。有一個困難嘅地方，就係喺本席面前，本席並沒有何聆案官作出有關訟費頒令嘅理由。但係根據鄭律師向本席嘅陳詞，他聲稱何聆案官認為被告人嘅反申索係並冇披露任何合理嘅訴訟因由。如果何聆案官曾經係有咁樣嘅結論，本席就認為何聆案官係犯咗法律上原則性嘅錯誤，因為根據本席喺頭先嘅分析，本席認為雖然狀紙方面係有缺欠，但係並不屬於一個沒有披露合理訴訟因由嘅情況。當然，本席唔知道何聆案官係咪真係以此理由作出訟費之頒令，但鄭律師指稱何聆案官曾經畀過一個咁嘅理由。

19.  無論如何，綜合本席上文提出嘅有關因素，考慮到雙方喺呢個剔除反申索嘅申請方面嘅行為同埋所採納嘅立場，本席認為喺咁嘅情況底下，頒令被告人方面需要負責原告人喺呢項申請嘅訟費，係有明顯錯誤嘅地方。在考慮一切相關因素後，本席認為一個合理嘅決定，唔應該要求被告人支付有關嘅訟費，所以本席應該係重新再考慮點樣先係一個合理或者合適嘅訟費命令。喺考慮晒有關嘅事宜之後，本席認為一個合適同埋對雙方都公道嘅判決，就有關剔除申請呢一方面，應該係不作任何訟費嘅頒令，即係話雙方各自支付自己嘅訟費。

20.  喺呢一方面，本席冇忽視到翁小姐提出，佢話佢嗰一方其實係成功反對反申索之剔除。但本席認為始終嚟講，有關嘅問題都係源於佢喺佢嘅反申索裡面冇足夠列出有關嘅事實。當然，原告人方面所採取嘅反應亦都係有過份嘅地方，但係喺考慮到雙方嘅情況底下，本席認為公平亦都公道嘅訟費頒令，係應該雙方各自負責自己嘅訟費頒令，所以本席會撤銷何聆案官就訟費方面嘅頒令，取而代之係頒令雙方各自負責自己嘅訟費。

(法官與與訟雙方討論有關訟費事宜)

21.  本席考慮過雙方嘅陳詞之後，就呢個上訴本身嘅訟費，本席睇唔到有咩嘢理據去唔行使酌情權，跟一般嘅做法，即係成功嘅一方應該獲得有關嘅訟費，所以本席頒令原告人需要支付被告人喺呢個上訴裡面嘅訟費。而呢個係一個in any event嘅訟費頒令，簡單嚟講，即係話呢個唔係即時支付嘅頒令，要等案件完結之後，先至去訟費評核官嗰度評核。