NGAN SAI KWAAI 對 顔國潘〔以新眾益凍肉公司之名稱營業〕及另一人

DCEC 61/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION CASE NO. 61 OF 2011

____________

____________

____________

判決書

____________

1.  申請人因為2010年2月10日工作期間受傷，於是入禀追討僱員補償。他指當時的僱主是第一答辯人〔“顔先生”〕和第二答辯人〔“陳女士“〕。

2.  經審訊後，本席裁定申請人所指意外，的確是在顏先生僱用工作期間，因受僱工作發生的。至於陳女士，則並不是申請人的僱主。因此，申請人針對顔先生的追討勝訴，針對陳女士的追討則予以撤銷。

3.  按此結果，本席作岀暫時訟費命令：顔先生須支付申請人因本訟案引起的訟費；申請人則須支付陳女士因本訟案引起的訟費。除非各方協議，所有訟費由法庭評定。申請人本身的訟費，須根據《法律援助規則》評定。除非與訟方於今天起計14天提出申請更改，該訟費命今將自動作實。

4.  申請人於2012年3月14日，提出傳票申請，要求陳女士的訟費，也由顔先生支付；顔先生並須支付本申請引起的訟費。

5.  兩名答辯人沒有出席。代表申請人的麥律師表示，傳票經由郵遞方式送達答辯人，但未有準傋確認誓章。

6.  不過，經聆聽申請人一方後，本席認為足以撤銷申請人的申請。本席作出如此命令，並命令上述暫時訟費命令作實。至於本申請引起之訟費，本席不作命令，唯申請人自己的訟費，仍需根據《法律援助規則》評估。

7.  本席現在解釋理由。

相關原則

8.  申請人要求法庭頒發的，是俗稱Sanderson order的訟費命令。該命令沿於英國案例Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533。

9.  高等法庭原訟法庭，最近於Fung Chun Man v Hospital Authority & Anor, HCPI 1113/2006 (2012年2月20日)*一案中，再次解釋相關法律原則：

“5. The principles that govern the making of Sanderson or a Bullock order …… are well settled. The court must, in each case, determine whether or not it was reasonable for the plaintiff to proceed against the successful defendant. If it was, the unsuccessful defendant may be ordered to pay the successful defendant’s costs, either directly, via a Sanderson order, or indirectly, via a Bullock order. As explained by Vaughan Williams LJ stated in Besterman v British Motor Cab Co Ltd [1914] 3 KB 181 at p.187, such costs form part of the reasonable costs of the action:

“… The proper way is – do not join any defendant unreasonably; if the facts are such that it is reasonable to join them both and reasonable to be in a state of uncertainty as to which of the two is the really guilty one, then it is part of the reasonable costs of the action that the costs of the action which you have launched against one of those defendants, and who has succeeded in defending himself, should be borne by the man who is to blame.”

……

10. The classic case where a Sanderson or Bullock is made is where the unsuccessful defendant blames the successful defendant and causes the plaintiff either to join the successful defendant or to continue the proceedings against the successful defendant. However, even absent such circumstances, it may be reasonable for the plaintiff to join the unsuccessful defendant, in cases where the plaintiff is faced with a denial of liability by the unsuccessful defendant and the real risk that the unsuccessful defendant may either be absolved from liability or unable to satisfy any judgment that may be obtained against him. In such circumstances, if the plaintiff is in possession of evidence that can implicate the successful defendant, evidence that is neither tenuous nor speculative nor far-fetched, it would be reasonable for the plaintiff to join or proceed against the successful defendant and the court, at the conclusion of such a case, may, in the exercise of its discretion over costs, make a Sanderson or Bullock order.

11.  In the context of actions in tort, it does not matter that the claim against the successful defendant was not made in the alternative but was a separate and independent cause of action……In exercising its discretion whether or not to make a Sanderson or Bullock order, the court would have regard to all the circumstances of the case and the state of the evidence to determine whether or not it was reasonable for the plaintiff to pursue the successful defendant.  In making its decision, the court must be careful not to lose sight of the uncertainties surrounding the case before its conclusion (per Bokhary J, as he then was, in Lee Lai Ha & Anor v Hong Sau Ling & Anor [1993] 1 HKLR 86)”

討論

6.  申請人在申請書中，指在意外發生時，顔先生和陳女士是共同〔jointly〕僱用他的。因此針對兩人索償，並非因為不清楚誰是當時僱主，或因為兩人互相推卸，而作出針對二人的交替性申索。

7.  當時以此為基礎，向陳女士索償，必定是因為申請人有此指稱，並經由申請人宣稱屬實。至於其他證據，似乎只有勞工處的調查報告。但報告沒有特别針對陳女士。

8.  顔先生和陳女士在答辯書中，已否認陳女士在意外時是申請人的僱主。

9.  2011年7月存檔的證人陳述書中，申請人提及當初在粉嶺聯和墟工作，是顔先生向他作出要求。結業後，他再到利來中心5樓工作，指顔先生和陳女士同是他的“上司”，但是沒有交待詳情。

10.  麥律師指，申請人是因為自己理解，兩名答辯人是夫妻關係，也曾一起在聯和墟營業〔陳女士並沒有否認這事實：見判案書第16至17段〕，所以認為陳女士也是他的僱主。可是，申請人針對陳女士的追討是否具合理基礎，準則並非是他的個人主觀想法，而是客觀的問題。

11.  在庭上，申請人才指是顔先生找他到聯和墟幫手和聘用他的。其後到該中心工作，也是顔先生找他的。有關在該中心工作的安排，申請人並無作出針對陳女士的指稱。申請人也承認，只在聯和墟時見過陳女士，其後就不知道陳女士的去向，也沒有從陳女士接受過工作指示。申請人確認無論在聯和墟的日子，或其後到該中心工作，都不是陳女士聘用他的〔見判案書第19段〕。

12.  因此，即使未去考慮陳女士審訊時所作供詞〔見判案書第16至18段〕，申請人可舉之證，也不足以指陳女士在意外發生時，是他的僱主。若上述是申請人向來認知的境況，不禁令人懷疑，當初他直指陳女士是僱主時，真正掌握的客觀證據有多實在。

13.  有別於針對顔先生的追討，申請人指意外發生時，陳女士也是他的僱主，以及堅持該立場至審訊結束，基礎未見隱妥。在上述情況下，申請人自決地堅持針對陳女士的追討，冒上最終失敗而負上訟費責任的風險，最終若容許他輕易將之轉嫁到顔先生身上，本席認為並非上述相關法律原則所認同的。

14.  因此，單就申請人的論據，未需聽取答辯人，也足以否定本申請。