梁智貞及另一人對 Mtr Corporation Ltd

Case No.LDBM 53/2014

Court

Lands Tribunal

Date15 Nov 2018

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

LDBM 53/2014 & LDBM 179/2016 (一併聆訊)

[2018] HKLdT 76

LDBM 53/2014

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2014年第53宗

_________________

	梁智貞 (LEUNG CHI CHING）	第一申請人
	陳天敏 (CHAN TIN MUN)	第二申請人
及
	MTR Corporation Limited	答辯人

_________________

LDBM 179/2016

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2016年第179宗

_________________

	MTR Corporation Limited	申請人
及
	梁智貞 (LEUNG CHI CHING)	第一答辯人
	陳天敏 (CHAN TIN MUN)	第二答辯人

_________________

主審法官:

土地審裁處法官譚利祥

審訊日期:	2018年6月11日至2018年6月15日及2018年7月12日
判案書日期:	2018年11月15日

_________________

判案書

_________________

1.梁智貞女士 (「梁女士」) 與陳天敏先生 (「陳先生」) 為夫妻關係，兩人為東涌映灣園第二期映灣軒 (Albany Cove) 的業主，亦是或曾是業主委員會的成員。就梁女士及陳先生的指稱及看法，因兩位立場相同，下文提及梁女士的指稱及看法即等於梁女士及陳先生的指稱及看法。

2.映灣園並未成立業主立案法團。映灣園的業戶 (特別是映灣園第II期的業戶) 的權利與責任，主要受制於三份均已在土地註冊處登記的文件：

(a)   主公契 – Principal Deed of Mutual Covenant and Management Agreement (「主公契」) ；

(b)   第II期的分公契 – Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant and Management Agreement in respect of Phase II to be known as “Albany Cove (映灣園)” (「分公契」) ；及

(c)   單務契 – Deed Poll 。

3.映灣園共有5,336個住宅單位及獨立屋，1,185個車位，三座住戶專用會所、商場、幼稚園等。分期建成並包括以下主要部份：

(a)   第I期 – 內有：

(i)   4座住宅 – 第1 、2 、3及5座，共1,552個單位；

(ii)   車場 – 共264個車位；及

(iii)   會所 (內有一系列設施，包括60米泳池，多個按摩池等) ；

(b)   第II期 – 3座住宅 – 第6至8座，共1,240個單位；

(c)   第III期 – 4座住宅 – 第9至12座，共1,664個單位；

(d)   第IV期 – 內有：

(i)   2座住宅 - 第15及16座，共824個單位；及

(ii)   會所 (內有多項設施，包括120米仿沙灘泳池，30米室內泳池等) ；

(e)   第V期 – 內有：

(i)   56 間獨立住宅屋；

(ii)   車場 - 共93個車位；及

(iii)   會所 (包括各類設施) ；

(f)   第VI期 – 車場，共828個車位 (711個供住戶使用及117個商用) ；及

(g)   商業部份 – 包括商場及幼稚園。

4.根據主公契，MTR Corporation Limited (「港鐵」) 是映灣園的經理人。

5.港鐵亦是映灣園的發展商。於主公契簽訂日，即2003年4月7日，映灣園的第I期已發展完成，唯其他期數的發展仍在繼續。

6.就映灣園各部份的業權份數 (Undivided Shares) (「業權份數」) 及管理份數 (Management Units) (「管理份數」) 的分配，主公契的第一附表本來已作出分配，但有關的分配因應映灣園日後的發展情況，一如主公契所預視及容許，已由單務契作出更改，把全映灣園的管理份數總數由362,701份改為362,035份。

7.至於第II期內各部份的業權份數及管理份數的分配，則由分公契處理。

爭議事項

8.雙方提出的爭議事項略有不同，就案件LDBM 53/2014 ，本席認為爭議事項如下：

爭議事項列表

1. 2013年6月14日業主大會通過的議程2 (開標結果3天內公佈及監察開標的委員毋須簽保密協議) 及議程3 (港鐵駐苑職員數目減至20人) 的決議，港鐵作為公契經理人是否有責任執行 ?

2. 港鐵就會所收入的安排有否違反主公契 I 1(b)(xxviii)段 ?

3. 會所預算被分攤至及包括在第二期住宅預算是否違反主公契 J4(i)(i)(ii)段？

4. (i) 將會所收入納入住宅賬是否違反主公契 I 1(b)(xv)段及附表二 II 2(b) ?
(ii) 港鐵將二期住宅的收入支出及分攤給二期住宅的會所收入支出兩套賬綜合起來，同時呈現在一份屬於二期住宅 (包含攤分給二期住宅的會所收入支出及其他二期住宅的收入支出) 的預算，另同時呈現一份屬於二期住宅 (包含攤分給二期住宅的會所收入支出及其他二期住宅的收入支出) 的物業管理全面收益表，是否違反主公契 ?

5. (i) 在計算因應會所而產生的經理人酬金時，應根據會所的總開支 (即實際總開支，而沒有扣除任何收入) 作為計算基礎，還是應根據會所的所謂淨開支 (即實際總開支扣除總收入) 作為計算基礎 ?
ii) 港鐵計算酬金包括會所部分，是否違反主公契 H4(b)條文 ?

6. (i) 2003年首次出版的住戶手冊內載有「會所一般守則」 (General Club House Regulations) 是否就是主公契定義的會所規則 ?
(ii) 映灣園現時有否符合主公契 I 1(b)(xxvii)條文成立的會所組織 (Club) 存在 ?

9.就案件LDBM 179/2016 ，本席認為爭議事項如下：

爭議事項列表

1. 港鐵為2014 、2015及2016年所編製的預算案，有否按主公契規定，分別就發展項目整體的管理及保養的預計支出，及各期或某期部分相關的管理及保養的預計支出，作出估算及按相關的管理份數攤分予相關業主?

2. 根據主公契的條款，港鐵是否需要在預算管理費通告/下一年度的管理費通知中，列明相關屋苑部份按每管理份數計算的管理費金額 ?

3. 根據主公契的條款，港鐵是否需要在繳款通知書上分別顯示主公契 J5(b)(i)及 J5(b)(ii)提及的「全苑整體」及「專屬期」的兩筆供款額 ?

4. 根據主公契的條款，在2014 、2015及2016年就映灣園穿梭巴士開支的分攤，應納入為公契 J4(i)(i)段的全苑整體開支或應納入為公契 J4(i)(ii)段的各專屬期開支 ?

5. 在2014 、2015及2016年的預算案中，映灣園公眾部分的物業稅向各專屬期的預算案內分攤，是否符合主公契J4(i)(ii)條的規定 ?

6. 在2014 、2015及2016年的預算案中，映灣園的發展項目整體預計支出由各專屬期業主分擔，是否符合主公契的規定 ?

7. 在2014 、2015及2016年的預算案中，就港鐵的駐苑及非駐苑職員，以及後勤支援部門開支的分攤是否符合主公契的規定 ?

8. 根據主公契的條款，港鐵作為通訊網絡設施及地方 (Communication Network Facilities and Areas) (“CNFA”) 的業主是否應就各「專屬期」預算案作出供款 ?

証供

10.本案的爭議，大部份是涉及解釋公契的條文，事實爭議不大。証人方面，梁女士本人作供。港鐵則傳召陳偉城先生，即映灣園的助理物業經理作供。

11.本席接受陳偉城先生的證供，他回答問題直接、清楚，並無迴避，證供亦有文件支持。

12.在比較下，梁女士的證供並不可靠。本席並不是指她不誠實，衹是她的看法頗為偏執、主觀，例如明顯的會所經營產生赤字，因為入不敷出。但她說會所並無赤字，因為住戶的管理費補貼在會所的預算賬內，這些都是會所的收入，所以沒有赤字。她這理解，是誤解「赤字」的意思。另一例子為會所明顯的存在，她卻認為會所因為沒有她所說的組織，所以並不存在。例如她說港鐵公司擅自更換了核數師，原來港鐵公司在更換核數師之前，已經知會了業委會，衹是她並不知情而已。

13.雙方如有事實的分岐，除非另有提及，本席接受陳偉城先生的證供，不接受梁女士的證供。

LDBM 53/2014

爭議1 ：2013年6月14日業主大會通過的議程2 (開標結果3天內公佈及監察開標的委員毋須簽保密協議) 及議程3 (港鐵駐苑職員數目減至20人) 的決議，港鐵作為公契管理人是否有責任執行？

判決

14.本席裁定港鐵並無責任執行該等決議，原因在下面列明。

15.本席接受代表港鐵的李東明大律師的陳詞，主公契並無條文規定經理人必須執行業主大會通過的所有決議，也沒有條文規定業主大會的決議對經理人有約束力。

16.有關業主大會的議決，主公契F部份第9段 (Section F, Clause 9) 的條文如下：

“9. Resolutions binding on Owners

Any resolution on any matter concerning the Development or the relevant part thereof (as the case may be), save only those matters referred to in Clause 11 of this section, passed at a duly convened meeting by a majority vote of the relevant Owners present in person or by proxy and voting shall be binding on all the Owners of the Development or the relevant part thereof (as the case may be) PROVIDED that:-”

17.意思是業主大會的議決衹對業主有約束力，並無明文規定對經理人有約束力。

18.經理人的權力，主公契有關的條文如下：

(i)   H部份1(b)段 (Section H, Clause 1(b)) 的條文 : -

“1. Appointment of the Managers

(b) MTR Corporation Limited in its capacity as Managers shall have the right to appoint or employ agents, contractors or sub-managers to carry out certain aspects of the management works or management works in respect of certain areas of the Development on such terms and conditions as it shall in its discretion deem fit and without the consent of the Owners any or all of its powers rights and responsibilities under this Deed and in case of such appointment or employment, all acts and deeds done or caused to be done by the agents, contractors or sub-managers shall be valid and binding on the Owners. For the avoidance of doubt, all such delegate or subcontractor shall remain answerable to the Managers who shall remain responsible for the management and control of the Development.”

(ii)   I部份第1段 (Section I, Clause 1) 的條文 : -

“1. Authority and duties of the Managers

(a) The Managers shall in respect of any part of the Development in respect of which an Occupation Permit has been issued have full and unrestricted authority without reference to any of the Owners to do all such acts and things in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Deed as may be necessary or requisite for the management of the relevant part of the Land and the Development and anything reasonably incidental thereto.

(b) Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing and the powers of the Managers as provided in other parts of this Deed, the Managers shall have the following powers and duties, namely: -

(i) To employ and to dismiss accountants, caretakers, security guards, watchmen, cleaners, attendants, gardens and such other staff as may be required for the proper management of the Development.

….

(vii) To carry out works to the Development which the Managers consider necessary for the enhancement, improvement or renovation of the Development Provided that such works shall not involve expenditure in excess of 10% of the current annual management budget except with the prior approval of the Development Owners’ Committee or the relevant Owners’ Sub-Committee or the Owners’ Corporation (as the case may be).

….

(xxix)   To do all things which the Managers shall in their absolute discretion deem necessary or desirable for the purposes of maintaining and improving the amenities of the Development for the better enjoyment or use thereof by the Owners and occupiers and their licensees.”

(iii)   I部份第2段 (Section I, Clause 2) 的條文 : -

“2. The Managers to control Common Areas and Facilities etc.

   The Common Areas and Facilities shall be under the exclusive control of the Managers.”

(iv)   I部份第3段 (Section I, Clause 3) 的條文 : -

“3. The Managers’ decision binding

All acts and decisions of the Managers arrived at in accordance with the provisions of this Deed in respect of any of the matters aforesaid shall be binding in all respects on all the Owners provided that the acts and decisions of the Managers shall not adversely affect the use, operation and maintenance of the Government Accommodation or any part thereof.”

(v)   I部份第4段 (Section I, Clause 4) 的條文 : -

“4. Powers of the Managers

The Managers shall have all the powers of a Corporation Incorporated under the Building Management Ordinance insofar as applicable and insofar as they may lawfully exercise such powers.”

(vi)   I部份第5段 (Section I, Clause 5) 的條文 : -

“5. Contracts entered into by Managers

The Mangers shall not, in any financial year, enter into any contract that involves an average annual expenditure of more than 20% of the budget or revised budget, as the case may be, for that financial year or of such greater amount as the Secretary for Home Affairs may specify by notice in the Government Gazette unless the procurement of such contract is by invitation to tender and the tender procedure in respect thereof complies with such standards and guidelines as may be specified in the Code of Practice referred to in section 20A(3) of the Building Management Ordinance relating to procurement and tender procedures.”

19.從上述條文可見，港鐵按照主公契的條文，有很大的酌情權，甚至按I部份的第3段，他的議決對業主是有約束力的。I部份第4段指出，他具有建築物管理條例經理人的權力。

20.梁女士依賴主公契H部份第6段，內容如下：

“6． Managers as Agent

The Managers are appointed to act as agent for and on behalf of all the Owners duly authorised in accordance with the provisions of this Deed in respect of any matter concerning the Common Areas and Facilities. Provided that the Managers shall not represent FSI in any dealings with the Government directly affecting the Government Accommodation and the Government Property Administrator shall in his sole discretion determine whether or not the Government Accommodation are direly affected.”

本席認為，這段所指的代理人是一般性的意思，是經理人根據大廈公契的條款為業主的代理人 (agent) ，即經理人可根據大廈公契的條款獲得代表業主的權力，並不是指因為經理人為業主的代理人，所以必須遵照業主的指示。原因亦可見於主公契H部份第7段：

“7. Owner’s Corporation

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Deed, during the existence of an Owner’s Corporation in respect of the Development under the Building Management Ordinance, the rights, duties, powers and obligations relating to the control, management and the administration of the Development conferred by this Deed shall vest in the Owners’ Corporation and the general meeting of the Owner’s Corporation shall take the place of the meeting of Owners under this Deed and the Management Committee of the Owners’ Corporation (which shall be constituted and elected in accordance with Section G of this Deed) shall take the place of the Development Owners’ Committee under this Deed.”

21.從上述條文可見，衹在組成法團以後，法團的會員大會才具有最高管理屋邨的權力。在此之前，經理人可按公契行使賦予的酌情權。主公契 I(4)的條文，內容為 “The Managers shall have all the powers of a Corporation Incorporated under the Building Management Ordinance insofar as applicable and insofar as they may lawfully exercise such powers,” 亦賦予經理人管理的權力，不受未成立法團之前的業主大會約束。

22.梁女士引述案件灝景灣業主立案法團對港基物業管理有限公司LDBM 210/2005第11段，「所以，在申請人成立之前，業主和經理人是共同擁有管理大廈的權利和責任，不過業主會是主事人(principal) ，而經理人是代理人(agent) 。」如上20段所述，這衹是一般性的描述。該案的申請人是法團，背景與本案不同。本案的代理人是按公契行事，應擁有酌情權。

23.梁女士引用梁智貞及陳天敏對 MTR Corporation Limited , LDBM 122/2010的第153段，「再者，邨巴的服務是由業主大會通過保留的，答辯人有責任執行業主大會通過的任何措施，不可能預期答辯人無償地提供相關服務。」那句 「有責任執行業主大會通過的任何措施」，是在這背景下提出的。當時的議題並不相同，那句話對處理本案議題並無幫助。

行使酌情權是否不能挑戰

24.本席認為，行使酌情權的事情並不是法庭不能干預。但法庭不會參與管理上的細微事情，去判定經理人的行為是否合理，或那種做法較為理想或合理。衹有在經理人的行為是非理性 (irrational) 或決定是任性及蠻不講理 (perverse) 的時候，法庭才會干預。其準則是沒有合理的經理人會作出此決定，那經理人才算是非理性或任意妄為。

25.在此準則下，去考慮業主大會的決議。決議2是「映灣園以後的採購開標結果，須在3個工作天內公佈，監察開標的委員毋須簽保密協議。」

26.李大律師提出上述3個工作天內公佈的決議並不合理，因為標書的價格衹是一個考慮因素，管理人需要時間，去了解標書的內容有否依據投標的要求，亦須要時間向回標者作出提問。梁女士提出，3個工作天公佈開標執行上並無困難。但基於上述的理據，經理人提出需時研究，提問標書的內容，此做法並不是非理性或任意妄為。業主大會無權強令經理人必須跟從3個工作天開標的議決。

27.就見證開標委員是否須要簽署保密協議，港鐵已表明這衹是要求，如委員不同意簽署，也不影響委員見證開標的安排。經理人當然可以提出要求，委員拒絕亦無實質影響。法庭毋須就此事作出裁定，法庭亦不會禁止港鐵提出要求。

28.就議決3 ，即經理人駐苑職員數目減至20人。管理處職員數目經理人有權決定。梁女士最初提出減少人手，精簡架構，但後來在結案陳詞卻說，可將管理處的部份工作分判出去，因分判商的職員成本較減，可減輕支出。但這是立場的改變。減少人手與分判工作是兩件事情。

29.並無證據顯示27人的編制是非理性的。映灣園的管理費，亦不比其他類似的屋苑昂貴，大約每方呎2.2元。業主會無權規定管理處人手為20人。

30.本席並不認為3個工作天開標與人手減為20人為不合理的做法。管理工作可有不同的做法，不同的做法亦可俱為合理，人多則職員工作壓力可能較輕，也可提供較優質的服務。但如上所述，是否合理不是可強令經理人依從的準則。不合理的做法當然經理人有權不依從。即使有不同的合理做法，經理人亦有權決定。經理人選擇較長的開標時間及較多的工作人手，無可厚非。

爭議2 ： 港鐵就會所收入的安排有否違反主公契I部份1(b)(xxviii)段？

爭議4 ：(i) 將會所收入納入住宅賬是否違反主公契I 1(b)(xv)段及附表二II 2(b) ?

(ii) 港鐵將二期住宅的收入支出及分攤給二期住宅的會所收入支出兩套賬綜合起來，同時呈現在一份屬於二期住宅(包含攤分給二期住宅的會所收入支出及其他二期住宅的收入支出) 的預算，另同時呈現一份屬於二期住宅(包含攤分給二期住宅的會所收入支出及其他二期住宅的收入支出) 的物業管理全面收益表，是否違反主公契?

31.兩項爭議有所關連，所以一併處理。

32.主公契 I部份1(b)(xxviii)段的條文如下：

“Subject to Clause 1(b) of Section H of this Deed, the Managers shall in consultation with the Development Owners’ Committee if the same shall be in existence at the material time have the right to appoint Sub-Manager as the Manager’s agent to manage the Recreational Areas and Facilities and/or the Club and/or the Club House or any part thereof or to let, hire, lease or license all or any part of the Recreational Areas and Facilities and/or the Club House for the purpose of operating the facilities therein Provided Always that all consideration such as fees and/or rent received from such hire, lease or licence of the Recreational Areas and Facilities apart from the Club House shall form part of the Management Funds for the Residential Development and all consideration such as fees and/or rent received from such hire, lease or licence of the Club House shall be used exclusively for the management and maintenance of the Club and Club House.”

33.梁女士指稱，經理人使用會所收入支付住宅多項開支，所以違反上述公契條文。

34.梁女士在開案陳詞25段至27段提出：

“25．……倘若會所有獨立帳，2013年度會所收支應結算如下：

會所經費預算向「業主會員」徵收[fees respect of the Club] $22,683,000

會所設施收入向使用者收費[income respect of Club House] $4,793,969

上述以the Club 及Club House名義所得總收入共有 $27,476,969

扣除會所全年支出 $21,077,398

2013年度會所盈餘 $6,399,571

上表顯示無論“fees respect of the Club” 或是“income respect of Club House” 都不屬於住宅管理費，答辯人不可把會所收入納入住宅管理基金之內。

26．答辯人在反對通知書 (16(iv)) 聲稱：

“the Respondent has duly included all fees and income received in respect of the Club and the Club House as and in a separate item in the name of “Clubhouse income”.”即是答辯人已承認會所收入有兩種來源，分別是：“in respect of the Club” 向「業主會員」徵收的“fees” 及“in respect of the Club House” 向會所使用者（包括租客、訪客等）收取的“income” ，故2013年度會所總收入應是$27,476,969 。

27．答辯人證人陳偉城在其陳述書34段指出 :

“fees and income received in respect of the Club and Club House were insufficient to cover the expenses for the Club and Club House.” 這並非事實。上文第25段可見答辯人向「業主會員」徵收的經費(fees) ($22,683,000) 足以應付會所的開支，會所活動的收入(income) $4,793,969根本沒有動用，答辯人把會所“income” $4,793,969全數納入住宅[E-11-776] 支付住宅各項開支，那是違反主公契I1(b)(xxviii)的。”

35.本席同意李大律師的陳詞，這指控全無事實根據。事實上 ,會所入不敷支，所有收入衹能支付會所支出。審核的財務報告及共聘的財務專家經已証實這點。以2013年1月至12月31日為例，會所全年累計收入為港幣4,793,969元，同期支出為21,077,398元，赤字為16,283,429元，港鐵不可能把會所收入用作住宅常用基金以支付各項開支。22,683,000元是會所的預算開支，根本不能當是收入。梁女士在上述第34段的會所收支表全無根據。

36.梁女士提出在核數報告中，會所的收入出現在住宅的賬目中。本席同意共聘專家的陳述，這衹是賬目呈現的方式而已。當然，若避免誤會，可以在賬目上不寫上會所收入，衹在支出部份寫上因補貼會所赤字的支出，便不會產生誤會。主公契 I 1(b)(xv)段要求經理人將會所收入使用在會所的支出上，本席認爲港鐵並無違反該條文。

爭議3 ：會所預算被分攤至包括在第二期住宅預算是否違反主公契J(4)(i) (i)(ii)段？

37.主公契 J(4)(i)(i)&(ii)的條文如下 : -

“(i) The Managers shall prepare the following budgets:-

(i) a Development Management Budget which shall show the estimated expenditure for the management and maintenance of the Development as a whole including the contribution to the Development Capital Fund and (subject to Clause 4(c) of Section H) the Manager’s Remuneration in respect thereof (excluding expenditure attributable to any particular part of the Development); and

(ii) a Phase Management Budget for each Phase of the Development which shall show the estimated expenditure for management and maintenance of each Phase of the Development including the contribution to the Phase Capital Fund and (subject to Clause 4(c) of Section H) the Managers’ Remuneration in respect thereof but excluding expenditure attributable to the Development as a whole or any other part of the Development and which may be broken down into sub-budgets or sub-sub-budgets for each part of the Car Park, Commercial Development, Kindergarten and Residential Development within a Phase or for any consistent part of each part of the Development within a Phase (as necessary or appropriate) for the purpose of differentiating between the different levels of management services available to the Owners of Units within parts of a Phase and the management and maintenance of the Recreational Areas and Facilities which are used exclusively by the Residential Development but not the whole of the Phase in each case, in the budget next prepared by the Managers immediately after an Occupation Permit has been issued in respect of any Phase of the Development.”

38.梁女士提出，「由於會所經費乃憑藉主公契 I部1(b)(xxvii)由會員作出供款，所以會所開支不屬於主公契 J部4(i)(i)(ii)的專屬期管理費開支，答辯人 (港鐵) 把會所開支納入第二期預算案是違反公契的」。「第二期範圍不包括會所。根據主公契 I部1(b)(xxvii) ，會員 (Club Member) 有責任支付會費以維持會所的謍運，但答辯人 (港鐵) 擅自把屬於 I部的會所經費開支當作 J部的管理費開支納入第二期，以計算更多經理人酬金，第二期業主因而蒙受損失。」

39.主公契 I(b)(xxvii)及(xxviii)的條文如下 : -

“(xxvii) Upon completion of the final Phase of the Residential Development by the issue of the Occupation Permit thereof and at any time prior to such completion if the Managers having regard to the circumstances at that time deem fit, the Managers will form the Club and the Managers shall have the power with the approval of the Development Owners’ Committee if the same shall be in existence at the material time from time to time to make, revoke or amend the Club Rules and to impose such amount of charges, fees or sums (recurrent or of capital nature as the case may be) payable by the members of the Club for the use of the facilities therein as the Managers deem fit Provided that all such charges, fees or sums received in respect of the Club shall be used exclusively for the management and maintenance of the Club and Club House. Each Residential Owner, his family members and tenants shall be a member of the Club, and shall observe and perform the Club Rules and payment of fees (if any) imposed by the Managers.

(xxviii) Subject to Clause 1(b) of Section H of this Deed, the Managers shall in consultation with the Development Owners’ Committee if the same shall be in existence at the material time have the right to appoint Sub-Manager as the Manager’s agent to manage the Recreational Areas and Facilities and/or the Club and/or the Club House or any part thereof or to let, hire, lease or license all or any part of the Recreational Areas and Facilities and/or the Club House for the purpose of operating the facilities therein Provided Always that all consideration such as fees and/or rent received from such hire, lease or licence of the Recreational Areas and Facilities apart from the Club House shall form part of the Management Funds for the Residential Development and all consideration such as fees and/or rent received from such hire, lease or licence of the Club House shall be used exclusively for the management and maintenance of the Club and Club House.”

40.梁女士的假設，即會所的經費乃憑藉會員供款，這假設是錯誤的。上述條文衹是說住宅，包括其家庭成員及租客為會所會員，並要遵守會所規則及支付經理人規定的費用 (如有的話) 。當中並無規定經理人必須向會員收取會費，或會員須作出供款。本案中經理人沒有收取會員會費並無違反公契。主公契 I 1(b)(xxvii)段的條文寫明，經理人可按他認為適當的情況下 (as the Managers deem fit) 收取使用設施的費用，並無規定經理人必須向會員收取會費。梁女士是曲解了條文的意思。梁女士所説的「相信會所營運自給自足是公契的精神」的説法全無根據。

41.會所的赤字，加入各專屬期的預算案中並無不妥。因為會所衹是由住戶使用，商場、幼稚園及街市業主等均無權享用。會所的赤字，由各期住戶補貼，是合理的。第II期的地域範圍內沒有會所並不影響II期住戶可使用會所的事實，所以亦應分擔會所的赤字。

42.經理人的酬金衹是按屋苑的實際支出計算，此等預算案不會影響經理人酬金。

43.本席亦接受李大律師的陳詞，本案中會所有獨立的分賬紀錄。入賬有時可能出現錯誤，但這並不影響在港鐵的賬目中，已設立的會所的獨立賬目。

44.但為清起見，本席認為既然會所設有獨立的銀行戶口，這戶口應該使用。即使戶口可能入不敷支，但獨立的銀行戶口對分賬處理有所幫助。港鐵可定期的將款項轉到此戶口。獨立的銀行戶口亦可較清楚的顯示會所赤字情況。

爭議5 : (i) 在計算因應會所而產生的經理人酬金時，應根據會所的總開支(即實際總開支，而沒有扣除任何收入) 作為計算基礎，還是應根據會所的所謂淨開支(即實際總開支扣除總收入) 作為計算基礎 ?

(ii) 港鐵計算酬金包括會所部分，是否違反主公契H4(b)條文?

45.有關經理人的酬金，主公契內相關的條文如下 : -

“(a) Section B

Definitions

“Managers’ Remuneration means the remuneration of the Managers for the performance of its duties in accordance with the provisions of this Deed.”

(b) Section H, Clause 4(b):-

“The Managers’ Remuneration for the performance of its duties hereunder shall be 10% of the total actual expenditure calculated in accordance with Section J of this Deed (excluding the Mangers’ Remuneration) incurred in the management of the Land and the Development. The percentage of total annual expenditure against which the Managers’ Remuneration is calculated may be reviewed by a majority resolution passed at a meeting of the Owners or the Development Owners’ Committee or the Owners’ Corporation (if formed).”

(c) Section H, Clause 4(c):-

“For the purpose of calculating the Managers’ Remuneration, the total expenditure incurred in the management of the Development shall exclude any capital expenditure. ….”

(d) Section H, Clause 4(d):-

“The Managers’ Remuneration as aforesaid shall be the net remuneration of the Mangers for their services as Managers and shall not include the costs, expenses, salary and fees for any staff, facilities, accountancy services or other professional supervision for the Land and the Development and all disbursements and out of pocket expenses properly incurred in the course of carrying out its duties hereunder which said costs and expenses shall form part of the management expenses and shall be a direct charge upon the Management Funds.”

(e) Section J, Clause 1(m)

“Costs to be borne by all the Owners

The costs charges and expenses, in respect of the management of the Development shall include but shall not be limited to those next following, and shall be paid by all the Owners of the Development in the manner herein provided:-

the costs of maintaining, operating, staffing, insuring, and any and all other costs in connection with the Recreational Areas and Facilities.”

(f) Recreational Areas and Facilities 在主公契內的釋義是指:

“Recreational Areas and facilities means such of the sporting and recreational areas and facilities including but not limited to the Club House as are designed by MTR under any Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant or deed poll executed under Clause 2 of Section C of this Deed to be for the use by the Owners and occupiers of the Residential Development and their bona fide visitors and any other recreational facilities which now are or may at any time during the Term be provided for the common benefit and use of the Owners and occupiers of the Residential Development.”

46.本席同意李大律師的陳詞，從主公契的條文清晰可見，計算經理人酬金應以會所的實際 (actual) 開支作為計算基礎，不應以開支扣除收入後的淨金額作為計算基礎。而會所，作為娛樂地方及設施 (Recreational Areas and Facilities) 的一部份，其管理上引發的開支也是要計經理人酬金的。

47.單一共聘專家亦確認港鐵實際上是按上述原則收費。

48.梁女士提出的，不論是應以會所開支扣除會所收入後的淨金額作為計算基礎，或不應計算會所開支，均無根據。

49.本席同意會所雖然由外判商作日常運作，但經理人仍然有監察的責任及工作。此外，水、電、日常用品，以至清潔、維修，都由經理人提供及安排。

50.如果按扣除會所收入的淨金額計算，一旦收支平衡，那經理人即使要做管理及監察的工作，便不能收取費用，這並不合理。

51.更重要的是，這並不合符主公契條款，主公契 H4(c)寫明，是按管理支出 (total expenditure incurred in the management of the Development) 收費的。主公契 J1(m)段亦寫明，管理支出，包括娛樂地方及設施的支出。

52.梁女士提出的會所的經費應是由會員承擔，所以便不屬於屋苑的支出，因此經理人便不應收取酬金，這說法全無根據，亦不合乎公契條文。

53.即使會所的收入衹可以使用在會所的支出上，也不影響經理人酬金的計算方式。

爭議6 : (i) 2003年首次出版的住戶手冊內載有「會所一般守則」(General Club House Regulations) 是否就是主公契定義的會所規則(Club Rules) ?

(ii) 映灣園現時有否符合主公契I 1(b)(xxvii)條文成立的會所(Club) 組織存在?

54.主公契中 I部份1(b)(xxvii)段的條文如下 : -

“(xxvii) Upon completion of the final Phase of the Residential Development by the issue of the Occupation Permit thereof and at any time prior to such completion if the Managers having regard to the circumstances at that time deem fit, the Managers will form the Club and the Managers shall have the power with the approval of the Development Owners’ Committee if the same shall be in existence at the material time from time to time to make, revoke or amend the Club Rules and to impose such amount of charges, fees or sums (recurrent or of capital nature as the case may be) payable by the members of the Club for the use of the facilities therein as the Managers deem fit Provided that all such charges, fees or sums received in respect of the Club shall be used exclusively for the management and maintenance of the Club and Club House. Each Residential Owner, his family members and tenants shall be a member of the Club, and shall observe and perform the Club Rules and payment of fees (if any) imposed by the Managers.”

55.從以上的條文可見 : -

(a)   經理人有權在最後一期住宅發出入伙紙之前成立會所 (Club) ；

(b)   如果 Development Owners’ Committee 已成立，經理人所訂立的會所規則 (Club Rules) 要經 Development Owners’ Committee 批核。而主公契中，會所規則是指 : -

“Club Rules means the rules and regulations including any payment or charge as may be imposed, made, revoked or amended by the Managers from time to time relating to the Club and the use, management, operation and maintenance of the Club House” ;

(c)   經理人有權，但非必須，向會所的會員徵收會費；及

(d)   所有住宅業主，及其家人及租客都是會員。

56.本席難以明白，梁女士仍然堅持提出，會所在發出最後一期住宅入伙紙之後，才能成立，她完全忽略了該段中提及 “at any time prior to such completion if the Managers having regard to the circumstances cut that time deem fit” 的字句。她說這是未成立會所，但會所也能營運的反映，這完全是斷章取義。

57.事實上，會所在第一期入伙後，即2003年7月已開始提供服務。

58.會所一旦提供服務，會所規則 (Club Rules) 便可作應用。梁女士聲稱相關的會所規則，因為在大廈公契未簽訂之前，已經草擬，所以不能是會所規則，這說法並不成立。明顯的是那些規則早經草擬，一旦會所運作c ，便使用那些規則。住戶手冊中提及的「本手冊衹供參考，一切以大廈公契作準」，並不影響經理人使用那些會所規則。

59.梁女士提出的會所尚未成立，亦沒有會所組織，例如會長、司庫、秘書等等。公契中並無設立此等職位的規定。沒有這些組織，並不等於會所沒有成立。

60.住戶的會所 (Residents Club) ，與根據香港法例所經營的會所有所不同，根本不能以那些法例條文作參考。住戶的會所，由經理人管理，亦可外判由分判商做日常運作，毋須設立會長、司庫等職位，即沒有梁女士所說的會所組織，會所也可以成立。

61.至於誰是會所的負責人，要按具體的情況，才可作相對的回應。港鐵是會所的最終負責人的說法，並無不妥。但日常的運作，會所經理便是會所的負責人。若對會所經理的投訴，那當然由屋苑的管理人負責。

LDBM 179/2016

背景

62.案件LDBM 179/2016源於梁女士自2014年1月起拒絕就T8-18C單位繳交全額管理費。2014年1月起，T8-18C單位的管理費，他們衹按2013年的管理費金額繳交。因此，就LDBM 179/2016涉及的時段，即2014年1月至2016年9月，他們就T8-18C單位欠交了部份的管理費，共港幣8,232元。

63.在本案期內，於2017年2月18日，梁女士在保留法律權利之下及在表明繳款並不代表同意管理處計算管理費的方法的基礎下，梁女士清繳了欠交的管理費及利息。

64.關於2014 、2015及2016年的管理費金額或支付責任，梁女士透過反申索，提出了多項涉及各有關年度預算案分攤預計支出，以及調整管理費通告及繳款通知書內容的爭議。

爭議1 ：港鐵為2014 、2015及2016 年所編製的預算案，有否按主公契規定，分別就發展項目整體的管理及保養的預計支出及各期或某期部分相關的管理及保養的預計支出作出估算及按相關的管理份數(Management Units) 攤分予相關業主？

65.有關管理費的釐訂，在主公契的 J部份第4及第5段，內容如下：

“4. Determination of Management Charges

(a) Subject to paragraphs (c), (d), (e), (f) and (h) of this Clause, the total amount of Management Charges payable by the Owners during any financial year in respect of the management of the Development shall be the total proposed expenditure during that year as specified by the Managers in accordance with paragraph (b) of this Clause.

(b) In respect of each financial year (other than the first), the Managers shall in the preceding financial year in consultation with the Development Owners’ Committee:

(i) prepare draft budgets in accordance with paragraph (i) of this Clause setting out the proposed expenditure during the financial year;

(ii) send a copy of the Development Management draft budget to the Development Owners’ Committee and any Phase draft budget to the relevant Phase Owners’ Sub-Committee, or where there is no Development Owners’ Committee or Phase Owners’ Sub-Committee, display a copy of the draft budget in a prominent place in the Development;

(iii) send or display, as the case may be, with the copy of the draft budgets a notice inviting each Owner to send his comments on the draft budgets to the Managers within a period of 14 days from the date the draft budgets were sent or first displayed;

(iv) after the end of that period, prepare a budget specifying the total proposed expenditure during the financial year;

(v) send a copy of the Development Management budget to the Development Owners’ Committee and the Phase budget to the relevant Phase Owners’ Sub-Committee or, where there is no Development Owners’ Committee or Phase Owners’ Sub-Committee, display a copy of the budget in a prominent place in the Development.

(c) Where in respect of a financial year, the Managers have not complied with paragraph (b) of this Clause before the start of that financial year, the total amount of the Management Charges for that year shall:

(i) until he has so complied, be deemed to be the same as the total amount of Management Charges (if any) for the previous financial year;

(ii) when he has so complied, be the total proposed expenditure specified in the budgets for that financial year, and the amount that the Owners shall contribute towards the Management Charges shall be calculated and adjusted accordingly.

(d) Where a budget has been sent or displayed in accordance with paragraph (b)(v) of this Clause and the Managers wish to revise it, they shall follow the same procedures in respect of the revised budget as apply to the draft budget and budget by virtue of paragraph (b) of this Clause.

(e) Where a revised budget is sent or displayed in accordance with paragraph (d) of this Clause, the total amount of the Management Charges for that financial year shall be the total expenditure or proposed expenditure specified in the revised budget and the amount that Owners shall contribute towards the Management Charges shall be calculated and adjusted accordingly.

(f) If there is an Owners’ Corporation and within a period of 1 month from the date that a budget or revised budget for a financial year is sent or first displayed in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of this Clause, the Corporation decides, by a resolution of the Owners, to reject the budget or revised budget, as the case may be, the total amount of Management Charges for the financial year shall, until another budget or revised budget is sent or displayed in accordance with paragraph (b) or (d) of this Clause and is not so rejected under this paragraph, be deemed to be the same as the total amount of Management Charges (if any) for the previous financial year, together with an amount not exceeding 10% of that total amount as the Managers may determine.

(g) If any Owner requests in writing the Managers to supply him with a copy of any draft budget, budget or revised budget, the Managers shall, on payment of a reasonable copying charge, supply a copy to that Owner.

(h) For the purposes of this Clause 4, “expenditure” includes all costs, charges and expenses to be borne by the Owners, including the Managers’ Remuneration pursuant to Clause 1 of this Section.

   (i) The Managers shall prepare the following budgets:-

   (i) a Development Management Budget which shall show the estimated expenditure for the management and maintenance of the Development as a whole including the contribution to the Development Capital Fund and (subject to Clause 4(c) of Section H) the Manager’s Remuneration in respect thereof (excluding expenditure attributable to any particular part of the Development); and

   (ii) a Phase Management Budget for each Phase of the Development which shall show the estimated expenditure for management and maintenance of each Phase of the Development including the contribution to the Phase Capital Fund and (subject to Clause 4(c) of Section H) the Managers’ Remuneration in respect thereof but excluding expenditure attributable to the Development as a whole or any other part of the Development and which may be broken down into sub-budgets or sub-budgets for each part of the Car Park, Commercial Development, Kindergarten and Residential Development within a Phase or for any consistent part of each part of the Development within a Phase (as necessary or appropriate) for the purpose of differentiating between the different levels of management services available to the Owners of Units within parts of a Phase and the management and maintenance of the Recreational Areas and Facilities which are used exclusively by the Residential Development but not the whole of the Phase in each case, in the budget next prepared by the Managers immediately after an Occupation Permit has been issued in respect of any Phase of the Development.

   The contribution to the expenditure comprised in any budget prepared by the Managers shall accrue with effect from the date that an Occupation Permit is issued in respect of any Phase of the Development and the Managers in determining the Management Charges payable by an Owner shall apportion expenditure between the Management Units attributable to those Units in respect of which an Occupation Permit has been issued from time to time. Provided that all outgoings of each Unit including the Management Charges up to and inclusive of the date of the first assignment of each Unit shall be paid by MTR.

5.   Payment of Management Charges

(a)   Each Owner shall contribute towards the Management Charges monthly in advance a contribution equal to 1/12th of the Management Charges (“Advance Payment”) payable by that Owner for that year on the first day of each calendar month.

(b)   The Owners shall contribute towards the Management Charges in the following manner: -

   (i) all Owners of Units in the Development shall contribute to the expenses of the Development Management Budget in the proportion that the Management Units attributable to the Units owned by them bears to the total Management Units from time to time allocated to the Development;

   (ii) the Owners of the Units in each Phase of the Development shall contribute to the expenses of the relevant Phase Management Budget in the proportion that the Management Units attributable to the Units owned by them bears to the total Management Units allocated to that Phase Provided That where the Managers prepare sub-budgets for a Phase or any part of it, only the expenses which are attributable to the Phase as a whole shall be apportioned in the manner described above and the expenses of any sub-budget shall be paid by the Owners of Units covered by such a sub-budget in the proportion that the Management Units attributable to the Units owned by them bears to the total number of Management Units allocated to all Units covered by such a sub-budget.

(c)   The Managers shall on or before the first day of each calendar month render to each of the Owners by sending to their respective Unit or to such other address as an Owner may from time to time in writing advise to the Managers either by post or by hand a written notification showing the amount of the monthly Management Charges payable by such Owner.

(d)   Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the Owners shall pay to the Managers any shortfall in the Managers’ Remuneration within 21 days from the completion of the preparation of an income and expenditure account and balance sheet in accordance with Clause 9(c) of this Section J.

Provided That where in the Managers’ opinion any expenditure has been incurred solely for the benefit of an Owner or group of Owners the Managers may charge that expenditure directly to that Owner or those Owners in such proportion as it may determine.”

66.本席接納陳偉城先生的証供，裁定港鐵已提供了預算草案，咨詢通告及定稿預算案及通告，並已依從主公契有關條文。梁女士的批評說港鐵並沒有交代計算方法，及開支混淆不清，並不成立。有關有否按正確的管理份數計算，在下面處理。

爭議2 ：根據主公契的條文，港鐵是否需要在預算管理費通告/下一年度的管理費通知中，列明相關屋苑部份按每管理份數計算的管理費金額？

爭議3 ：根據主公契的條文，港鐵是否需要在繳款通知書上分別顯示主公契J5(b)(i)及J5(b)(ii)提及的「全苑整體」及「專屬期」的兩筆供款額？

67.兩項爭議類似，可以一併處理。梁女士指稱經理人違反主公契，因為 : -

(a) 經理人每年就調整管理費所發出「預算管理費通告」衹列出每平方呎建築面積攤分的金額，而沒有列出每管理份數攤分的金額；及

(b) 經理人每月發出的「繳款通知書」沒有分別顯示 “Development Management Budget” 及 “Phase Management Budget” 攤分入相關單位的兩筆管理費。

68.港鐵認為在主公契的條文下 : -

(a) 經理人無須在相關「預算管理費通告」列出每管理份數攤分的金額。在實際執行中，經理人在該等通告中列出每平方呎建築面積攤分的金額，衹是方便業主理解管理費的調整情況及水平。因為不同屋苑的業權分數或管理分數的分派基礎都會有差異，要比較管理費平貴衹能以每平方呎面積平均費用來作比較。再者，從諮詢期內已公佈的預算案草案以及與「預算管理費通告」一起張貼的預算案定稿內的註釋，都已列出每管理份數所攤分的管理費金額；及

(b) 經理人亦無須要在相關「繳款通知書」分別列出攤分自 “Development Management Budget” 及 “Phase Management Budget” 的兩筆管理費。

69.主公契內關於擬備及公報預算案的條文 (如J部份4(b)段) ，並沒有要求在公佈預算案定稿的通告上要列明每管理份數所攤分的金額。而事實上，在預算案內，已列明每管理份數所攤分的管理費金額。

70.至於主公契內關於業主應繳管理費金額的條文，雖然顯示管理費會由兩部分 (即攤分自 “Development Management Budget” 及 “Phase Management Budget”的金額) 組成，但也沒有要求在繳款通知書內把兩金額分別列出，衹要求在書面通知中列出業主應交的管理費金額。相關條文如下： -

“(a) “Management Charges：-“means the monthly charges and other costs, charges, expenses and contributions calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section J of this Deed and the Managers’ Remuneration”

(b)   Section J, Clause 5(a):-

5. Payment of Management Charges

   (a) Each Owner shall contribute towards the Management Charges monthly in advance a contribution equal 1/12th of the Management Charges (“Advance Payment”) payable by that Owner for that year on the first day of each calendar month.

   (c)Section J, Clause 5(b):-

   (b) The Owners shall contribute towards the Management Charges in the following manner:-

   (i) all Owners of Units in the Development shall contribute to the expenses of theDevelopment Management Budget in the proportion that the Management Units attributable to the Units owned by them bears to the total Management Units from time to time allocated to the Development;

   (ii) the Owners of the Units in each Phase of the Development shall contribute to the expenses of the relevant Phase Management Budget in the proportion that the Management Units attributable to the Units owned by them bears to the total Management Units allocated to that Phase Provided That where the Managers prepare sub-budgets for a Phase or any part of it, only the expenses which are attributable to the Phase as a whole shall be apportioned in the manner described above and the expenses of any sub-budget shall by paid by the Owners of Units covered by such a sub-budget in the proportion that the Management Units attributable to the Units owned by them bears to the total number of Management Units allocated to all Units covered by such a sub-budget.

   (d)   Section J, Clause 5(c):-

   (c) The Managers shall on or before the first day of each calendar month render to each of the Owners by sending to their respective Unit or to such other address as owner may from time to time in writing advise to the Managers either by post or by hand a written notification showing the amount of the monthly Management Charges payable by such Owner.”

李大律師提出那通知書衹需列出業主要支付的一個總金額 “amount” ，而沒有要求把不同組成部份的多個金額 “amounts” 列出。

71.本席接受港鐵的論據。公契的條文並無規定要在管理費的繳款通知書上，顯示「全苑整體」及「專屬期」的相關數目。業主需要支付兩筆數目，並不等於必須在繳款通知書中展示。公契的條文亦無細緻的要求在「預算管理通告」中列出每管理份數攤分的金額。是否列出，應該按管理人做事的方式。本席亦接受港鐵已在預算的草案及定稿中列出上述資料。

爭議4 ：根據主公契的條文，在2014 、2015及2016年就映灣園穿梭巴士開支的分攤，應納入為公契J4(i)(i)段的全苑整體開支或應納入為公契J4(i)(ii)段的各專屬期開支？

72.梁女士指稱映灣園穿梭巴士的開支不應列入 “Phase Management Budget” 衹由映灣園的住戶攤分，而應列入 “Development Management Budget” 由全映灣園業戶攤分。

73.映灣園的穿梭巴士服務是為住宅住戶而設，供住宅住戶及其訪客使用。其他部份的業戶，如商場的業主或訪客，均不能使用。

74.梁女士提出，有不少訪客、家務助理等非居民乘搭；並且邨巴服務涵蓋全苑，使用的道路是公共地方，所以不應屬於專屬開支。

75.家務助理如果是指家庭傭工，他們也有權使用邨巴，另外，如果邨巴有濫用的情況，這衹是不守規則的使用，並不影響應該如何使用的問題。

76.使用公共道路的講法全無理據，更與支出問題無關。

77.案件LDBM 122/2010的152段所指，「邨巴的開支屬管理映灣園所招致的實際開支，其營運成本應由所有業戶承擔......」。

78.上述案件的議題，是「有關屋苑邨巴服務的收費是否可以管理費方式收取」，該案中梁女士提出管理處額外安排邨巴服務，衹可視作一種增值服務或義務服務，不能如其他一般的管理開支收取酬金 (151段) 。法庭裁定「邨巴的開支屬管理映灣園所招致的實際開支，其營運成本應由所有業戶承擔，而在計算經理人酬金時亦應計算在內。」從上述的背景看來，法庭並不是裁定邨巴費用預算的問題，梁女士斷章取義，有關字句並不支持梁女士的說法。

79.有關邨巴應否收費，並非本案爭議議題，也屬於管理人的酌情之內。

80.有關職員應否免費使用邨巴。本席接獲受陳偉城先生的証供，容許職員使用不會對開支造成實質影響。本席已考慮了職員服務整個屋苑的問題，但如果要求職員支付乘車費用，衹會增加管理開支，對住戶並無好處。即使容許所有職員免費使用邨巴的做法不當，也不影響商場或幼稚園等的業主並不使用邨巴服務的安排。

81.總的來說，邨巴衹供住戶及其訪客使用，商場、停車場、幼稚園、街巿等人仕不能使用，所以支出在專屬預算案中是適當的。

爭議5 ：在2014 、2015及2016年的預算案中，映灣園公眾部份的物業稅向各專屬期的預算案內分攤是否符合主公契J4(i)(ii)段的規定？

82.梁女士及陳先生認為物業稅開支不應列入專屬第II期的 “Phase Management Budget” ，及泊車費、罰款或行政費不能當作租金支付物業稅。

83.就2014 、2015及2016年的預算案而言，在第II期的 “Phase Management Budget” 中，預估的物業稅支出是非常低的：

年度 物業稅（港元） 總支出（港元）

2014 5,000 28,516,000

2015 5,000 30,005,000

2016 9,000 31,520,000

84.李大律師解釋，在第II期 “Phase Management Budget” 中須作出的預估的「物業稅」開支是為分配予第II期的若干收入應付的「物業稅」作出撥備，而該等收入會產生「物業稅」。該等分配予第II期的收入為來自 (1) 發出公用部分特許予電訊營運商安裝流動通訊發射設施的特許費； (2) 上落貨區的使用費；及 (3) 單車停車位使用費之收入。由於有關的收入已分配予第II期，而該等收入生的物業稅構成開支的一部分，第II期業主應就此作出供款。相應的收入及物業稅開支應納入 “Phase Management Budget” 之中。那些被分配到各期的收入在預算案中被列為 “other income雜項收益” 。至於預算案的備註內未有詳列 “雜項收益 (Miscellaneous Income)” 項目下所有各細項的收益內容也是正常的。那些“雜項收益 (Miscellaneous Income)”的總數與整體預算案的收入或支出相比都是十分微少，不可能亦無需在預算案內詳列其組成部份。當中相關收益被分配到各期的預算中作為其收入的一部份，相關期數的業主在各期的預算案中要攤分那些相應收入的物業稅也是理所當然。

85.就電訊營運商在公用地方安裝流動通訊發射設施所支付給經理人的特許費，梁女士並無爭議。他們質疑的是在第II期地域範圍內沒有安裝該等設施，為何第II期要攤分該等設施的特許費所引發的物業稅，並且稅單上所指的位置是 “Common Part of Caribbean Coast” 。

86.本席接受陳偉城先生的証供，他這方面的証供亦無爭議，即第二期住宅享用流動電話及使用流動收據服務。該等服務設施，雖然在公共地方，但衹是服務不同期數的住宅用戶的，與其他業權擁有人，例如商場、街巿、停車場等，並無關係，所以安放在專屬期的預算案中是恰當的。

87.至於上落客貨停車費的收入，本席同意，是指那些在映灣園內上落客貨停留時間超過了免收費時限，由經理人收取的按時收費，明顯等同一般泊車費。這從相關的收費規則 “超時Overtime管理處會向超時車輛收取泊車費，每小時$100 。 The Management Office will charge $100 per hour for overtime parking” 。以及該等「超時泊車」收費的收據清楚可見。這些收入要交物業稅，而陳偉城先生亦確認就這些收入交了物業稅。陳偉城先生也解釋了該等收入如何分配到各期之中。

88.至於單車停車位的收入，也分配在各期之中，也衹是映灣園住戶使月，而每車位每年收費$300 。這收費雖被命名為「行政費」，其性質與一般停車位收費無異，要交物業稅也是正常。陳偉城先生也確認就這類收入交了物業稅。

89.屋苑的收支預算，是按公契條文，不是按稅單的描述，即使設施的位置不在個別期數之內，但如衹是服務住戶，列在各期的專屬期內是恰當的。

爭議6 ：在2014 、2015及2016年的預算案中，映灣園的發展項目整體預計支出由各專屬期業主分擔，是否符合主公契的規定？

90.梁女士指稱屋苑公共 “Development Common” 開支屬於 “Development Management Budget” 的範疇，不應向各期攤派。

91.本席難以理解梁女士的說法，根據主公契 J部份，5(b)段，相關單位 “Units” 的業主須要按管理份數比例分擔 “Development Management Budget” 以及相關 “Phase Management Budget” 的開支。屬於 “Development Management Budget” 範疇的屋苑公共 “Development Common” 的開支，最終亦是要由各業主分擔。將公共發展期的預算，放在發展期的預算中並無不妥，賬目也更加清楚。

爭議7 ：在2014 、2015及2016年的預算案中，就經理人的駐苑及非駐苑職員，以及後勤支援部門開支的分攤是否符合主公契的規定？

92.梁女士指稱經理人應當，但沒有，在預算案提供映灣園的駐苑及非駐苑港鐵公司職員薪酬及後勤支援部門開支攤分的明細。

93.在2014、2015及2016年的預算案中，經理人列出的是員工薪酬及總部支援部門開支攤分 (Staff Costs & Interdepartmental Charges) 。另外，預算案中有提供駐苑員工的分配表，也指出了那些員工薪酬及總部支援部門開支攤分支出中，除駐苑員工的薪酬支出外，已包括總部支援部門的開支。

94.陳偉城先生在他的陳述書指出經理人除了駐苑港鐵員工外，經理人的總部職員，包括 (1) 指定負責管理該發展項目但非駐該發展項目的員工 (非駐苑港鐵員工) ；及 (2) 為港鐵公司管理的屋苑之管理處提供後勤支援服務的總部後勤支援部員工，他們也有向映灣園提供服務，而相關開支也要由映灣園不同期數的業主分擔。陳偉城先生在法庭作供時，再就上述兩類總部職員向映灣園提供的管理服務作進一步闡述。這些資料，按李大律師的總結如下：

(a)   有些指定負責管理個別發展項目但非駐苑的港鐵員工，他們都是港鐵公司物業管理部的員工，衹負責有關港鐵公司管理的發展項目的工作，而他們的工作性質大致分為三類 : -

(i)   一隊共有大約7名技術管理人員，駐在青衣城，有特定工作範圍，負責所謂 “LAR” (Lantau and Airport Railway) 區域內港鐵公司管理的大約10個發展項目，當中包括映灣園；

(ii)   一隊共有超過15名財務部的工作人員，駐在港鐵公司九龍灣總部，負責港鐵公司管理的約50個發展項目，當中由於映灣園規模大，涉及大量收支項目，有個別財務部員工專門負責映灣園的財務工作 (如把收支入賬、核對收入開支、發出支付開支的支票、擬備每季向業主公佈的未經審計財務報表，以至與核數師處理有關年度審計的事宜) ；及

(iii)   一隊共有超過10多人的物業支援隊 (Property Support Team) ，駐在港鐵公司九龍灣總部，負責向港鐵公司管理的約50個發展項目，當中包括映灣園，給予支援，例如， (1) 有大約3名負責保安的工作人員，在日間以及在晚上駐苑管理人員下班後，不定時駕車到不同發展項目，作保安巡查，以監察保安人員及外判商的工作；(2) 有大約4名負責安全的工作人員，不時到不同發展項目，就發展項目管理涉及的工程，以至駐苑員工及外判商工人的工業安全作監察；以及 (3) 有大約10名負責所有發展項目管理上的文書以至行政工作。例如作出聯苑訂購、處理 ISO的合規要求的相關文書等。

(b)   至於港鐵公司總部後勤支援部員工，大約有20多人，除了向港鐵公司管理的約50個發展項目所涉及的管理工作提供各種支援，也處理港鐵公司其他營運方面 (如鐵路事宜) 的工作。至於後勤支援部的員工涉及物業管理的工作主要包括：

(i)   合約及採購部的員工，工作包括為各發展項目涉及的外判工程或服務招標，按相關發展項目的實際需要及獨特情況擬備標書，也監察開標，以及分析投標者的回標和向投標者提出要求澄清回標內容；

(ii)   法務部的5至6名員工，當中包括律師，為各發展項目涉及的法律問題提供法律意見及服務；

(iii)   人事部的3至4名員工；

(iv)   公司巿務部的3數位員工，負責公關工作，回應傳媒就各發展項目所作的查詢；及

(v)   資訊科技部的6至7名員工，負責處理各發展項目的管理工作所涉及和需要使用的不同電腦軟件的事宜，包括從供應商購買的軟件及由港鐵公司自行開發的軟件，以至那些軟件的保養及維護。

95.陳偉城先生並指出駐苑的27名員工加上上述的非駐苑港鐵員工的薪酬支出約佔員工薪酬 (Staff Costs) 及總部支援部門開支攤分中80% 。駐苑的27名員工的支出當然由映灣園負責。至於非駐苑港鐵員工所攤分到映灣園的支出，基本上是按他們涉及映灣園的工作量的比例攤分。而這部份關於駐苑的27名員工及非駐苑港鐵員工的支出，視乎實際情況，部份是按管理份數，部份是按用者自付原則，撥入不同期數或部份，由不同期數或部份的業主分擔。至於後勤支援部員工的支出，是按他們涉及映灣園的工作量來向映灣園收取。基本上這部份的支出是按用者自付原則，撥入不同期數或部份，由不同期數或部份的業主分擔。

96.李大律師提出，主公契沒有就預算案的格式或詳細內容或所需臚列的明細，作出任何規定。基本上，預算案衹須列出經理人預計/估計來年合理地須就相關物業管理而作出的開支。沒有必要把各項開支的明細臚列。沒有任何條文顯示經理人要在預算案內分項分別列出駐苑員工、非駐苑港鐵員工以及後勤支援部員工的支出明細。也沒有任何條文要求經理人要在預算案內分別列出非駐苑港鐵員工及/或後勤支援部員工的開支攤分到映灣園的明細，亦沒有任何條文規定經理人要在預算案內列出駐苑員工、非駐苑港鐵員工以及後勤支援部員工的支出是如何攤分到各期數或部份。固然，這些明細資料並非主公契或法律上要求預算案內須提供的。在實際執行層面，要是把所有明細資料都在預算案內列出，衹會令預算案變得極其冗長及複雜，令業主們閱讀時難以聚焦。

97.本席同意主公契並無規定預算案中的格式或詳細程度。明細不足亦不是不支付管理費的理由。但按陳偉城先生的詳細補充，在一個項目中包括那麼多細項明顯的並不理想。最少應分開「駐苑員工」、「非駐苑員工」、「支援部門開支」之部份，預算的數目是多少，以便住戶了解監察。

98.本案衹是處理預算案的事情，至於屋苑所支付的費用是否合適，能用查閱賬簿方式處理，並不在本案的範圍之內。

爭議8 ：根據主公契的條款，港鐵作為通訊網絡設施及地方(CNFA) 的業主是否應就各「專屬期」預算案作出供款？

99.梁女士及陳先生認為CNFA的業主應該也要就CNFA交管理費。

100.映灣園第二期分公契列明二期共75,173管理份數 (MU) ，其中CNFA佔2份。

101.李大律師指出，按照主公契及分公契的條文的正確詮釋，港鐵公司不需要就CNFA交管理費。原因如下：

“(a)   DMC, Section J, Clause 5(b) 只列明在眾業主當中“Units” 的業主要分擔“Development Management Budget” 及“Phase Management Budget” 的開支；

(b)   主公契就“Units” 一字有清楚的定義：-

“Unit means a part of the Development the exclusive use and enjoyment of which has been or is intended to be assigned to an Owner and to which undivided share(s) is or are allocated pursuant to this Deed or a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant or Deed Poll executed under Clause 2 of Section C of this Deed” ；

(c)   但主公契的條文清楚顯示，港鐵公司對CNFA並沒有要符合 “Units” 一字的定義中所要有“獨有的使用及享用權 – exclusive use and enjoyment ”；

(i)   就CNFA , DMC也有定義：-

“Communication Network Facilities and Areas means the aerial and satellite reception distribution cabling infrastructure and telecommunication cabling infrastructure (including all infrastructure and facilities capable of conveying all telecommunications traffic including but not limited to voice, internet, broadband and any other data communications) and their associated equipment and accessories including the connection with the voice exchange and enhancement services equipment and all pipes ducting conduits and other parts of the Development from, in, on or through which all such infrastructure equipment accessories pipes ducting and conduits are installed or affixed up to the distribution boards on each floor of the building within the Development”；

(ii)     主公契，Section C, Clause 11條文如下 ：-

“11. Communication Network Facilities and Areas

(a) Subject to the prior written consent of the Owner of the Communication Network Facilities and Areas (whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed), each Owner of a Unit shall be entitled to connect to the aerial and satellite reception distribution system and telecommunications, internet and broadband distribution from time to time provided and forming part of the Communication Network Facilities and Areas via the distribution board on each floor of the building within the Development for the purpose of usage of the facilities provided incidental to their ownership of the Unit;

(b) The Owner of the Communication Network Facilities and Areas shall not charge a fee to any Owner for the purpose of connection of his Unit to the Communication Network Facilities and Areas but this shall not preclude the provider of any available services to charge an Owner for access to or usage of any service provided through the Communication Network Facilities and Areas.”;

(iii) 分公契C部分5段條文如下 ：-

“5. Phase II Communication Network Facilities and Areas

(a) Subject to the prior written consent of the Owners of the Phase II Communication Network Facilities and Areas (whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed), each Owner of a Phase II Residential Unit shall be entitled to connect to the aerial and satellite reception distribution system and telecommunications, internet and support broadband distribution system from time to time provided and forming part of the Phase II Communication Network Facilities and Areas via the distribution board on each floor of the building within Phase II for the purpose of usage of the facilities provided incidental to their ownership of the Unit;

(b) The Owner of the Phase II Communication Network Facilities and Areas shall not charge a fee to any Owner for the purpose of connection of his Unit to the Phase II Communication Network Facilities and Areas but this shall not preclude the provider of any available service to charge an Owner for access to or usage of any services provided through the Phase II Communication Network Facilities and Areas;

   (iv)   主公契A部分更指明：-

“Pursuant to the terms of this Deed MTR shall retain ownership and control of the communication Network Facilities and Areas (as defined) and be responsible for their future maintenance and renewal. MTR shall permit Owners to connect to the relevant facilities free of charge although Owners may be required in the usual way to pay to the relevant service provider for the right to use the services provided.”

(d) 另外，很重要的是，在主公契中，並非所有“Owner” 業主都對其擁有的部份享有獨有的使用及享用權：

(i)   “Owner” 指“the person in whom for the time being any Share is vested and who is registered as the owner of such Share at the Island New Territories Land Registry (collectively “the Owners)” ...”;

(ii)   “Car Park Owner” 指“an Owner entitled to the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy a Carparking Space”;

(iii)   “Commercial Owner” 指“an Owner entitled to the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy the Commercial Development” ;及

(iv)   “Residential Owner” 指“an Owner entitled to the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy a Unit in the Residential Development” ;

(e) 港鐵公司作為CNFA的業權分數的持有人，與映灣園內其他部份的業主，如車位、住宅單位及商場業主，對其擁有部份有獨有的使用及享用權的情況截然不同；

(i) 關於車位業主，主公契有如下條文：-

“Car Park means those parts of the Development ... constructed or to be constructed for the purpose of parking, loading and unloading of private cars, light goods vehicles and other motor vehicles:

“Car Park Owner means an Owner entitled to the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy a Carparking Space”

“Carparking Space means a Unit situate in the Car Park”

(ii) 至於住宅單位業主，主公契有如下條文：-

“Residential Development means those parts of the Development ... ... constructed or to be constructed in accordance with the Building Plans for residential use”；

“Residential Owner means an Owner entitled to the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy a Unit in the Residential Development” ；及

(iii) 至於商場業主，主公契有如下條文：-

“Commercial Development means those parts of the Development ... constructed or to be constructed for retail use or such other use as may from time to time be approved by the Director including the loading and unloading bays therefor”；及

“Commercial Owner means an Owner entitled to the sole and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy the Commercial Development” ; 及

(f) 因此，從主公契的條文可見，CNFA並不屬於主公契, Section J , Clause 5(b)中的“Units” (在DMC的定義下“Units” 的 “Owner” 是要就其擁有部份享有“exclusive use and enjoyment” 才乎合“Units”的定義) ，但港鐵公司作為CNFA的業主對CNFA並不享有“exclusive use and enjoyment” ，所以CNFA也不乎合“Units” 的定義，無須就CNFA交管理費。”

102.李大律師提出，以上就主公契條文的解釋與引用一般法律原則到映灣園所達到的結論也吻合。雖然港鐵公司是CNFA業權份數及管理份數的持有人，在法律上，那並不意味著港鐵公司對CNFA必然有獨有使用及享用權，視乎情況CNFA可以屬於屋苑的公用部分。港鐵公司對CNFA是否有獨有使用及享用權以至CNFA是否屬於屋苑的「公用部份」的關鍵，在於根據建築物管理條例及主公契的相關條文，究竟港鐵公司作為CNFA的註冊持有人，對CNFA是否享有獨有管有權或獨有使用權或享用權 (exclusive possession) 。

103.李大律師認為，

“根據建築物管理條例” 第2條關於“公用部分” 的釋義，以及附表1第6款中明確提述“ducts” 即“導管” 為“公用部分” ，表面上，CNFA ，作為大廈內的導管，屬於屋苑的“公用部分” ：-

(i) 該條例第2條指：

“2. 釋義

在本條例中，除文意另有所指外 –

“公用部分” (common parts) 指 –

(a) 建築物的全部，但不包括在士地註冊處註冊的文書所指明或指定專供某一業主使用、佔用或享用的部份；及

(b) 附表1指明的部分，但上述文書如此指明或指定的部分除外；”

(ii) 該條例附表1指 ：-

“公用部分” 包括：

屋頂、... ...碟形衞星天線及附屬設備、天線及天線電線。

The roofs, ... satellite dishes and ancillary equipment, aerials and aerial cables.

水箱、... ... 導管、落水管、電纜、陰溝、垃圾槽、卸斗及垃圾房。

Water tanks, ... ducts, downpipes, cables, conduits, refuse chutes, hoppers and refuse container chambers.”

故此，除非屋苑公契另有所指，否則CNFA是公用部分。

在考慮主公契的正確解釋時，除非主公契內有明示或暗示條款把CNFA的獨有管有權給予任何個別業主，否則CNFA必然是公用部分。

Hollywood Shopping Centre Owners Committee Ltd v. The Incorporated Owners of Wing Wah Building Mongkok Kowloon [2011] 4 HKLRD 623(CA) ，見第47段。

在本陳詞第167(c)段提及的主公契內的條文，則清晰地顯示港鐵公司對CNFA沒有獨有使用及享用權。他是必要讓其他業主使用CNFA ，並不能向業主收費。

基於主公契條文針對港鐵公司對CNFA的使用權所作的限制，儘管港鐵公司持有CNFA ，在法律上，港鐵公司對CNFA並不享有獨有管有權或獨有使用權、佔用權或享用權。關鍵是，有限度或限制的使用權不構成獨有管有權。事實上，主公契針對港鐵公司CNFA的使用的限制比下述案例中的公契對那些相關大廈部份的使用限制更甚。

- Hollywood Shopping Centre Owners Committee Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Wing Wah Building Mongkok Kowloon [2011] 4 HKLRD 623(CA) ，見第45 - 48段。

- Incorporated Owners of Goa Building v Wui Tat Co Ltd [2004] 1 HKC 348(CA) ，見第3 - 7段。

- Incorporated Owners of Shatin New Town v Yeung Kui [2010] 2 HKC241(CA) ，見第14 - 22段。

這進一步說明港鐵公司對CNFA並無獨有使用及享用權，無須就CNFA交管理費。”

104.本席並不同意李大律師的陳詞。

105.正如上述主公契，A部份第7段的上半部講明， “MTR shall retain ownership and control of the Communication Network Facilities and Areas and be responsible for their future maintenance and renewal.”。准許業主免費使用CNFA ，並不能當為沒有管有權，亦不能當為沒有獨家使用權。正因為港鐵有獨家使用權，它才可讓他人免費使用。

106.CNFA既有兩份不可分割業權份數 (undivided shares) ，亦有兩份管理份數 (MU) ，唯一的理解，就是既有獨家使用權，亦要支付管理費。

107.本席不接受CNFA是公用部份的說法，這明顯不符合主公契條文。容讓部份人士，如業主免費使用並不會將CNFA變為公用部份。主公契 J部份5b(i)寫明管理費是按管理份數計算及支付的。

108.但CNFA衹佔管理份數很小部份，本席並不應因為港鐵沒有支付這部份的管理費，其他業主，包括梁女士便有權不交管理費。本席認為毋須重新計算管理費，並撤銷梁女士此項申請。

109.梁女士並無在反申索中，列明如CNFA須支付管理費，她所要求的命令是甚麼，本席容許雙方就此問題再作協商，並可再向法庭申請。

總結

110.除CNFA一項外，總的來說，梁女士的申請是失敗的，港鐵在員工薪酬一項的交待也不理想，亦考慮到梁女士的目的是監察港鐵作為管理人的運作，但梁女士許多的說法，既無理由亦無基礎。訟費方面，兩案一起審訊，再難細分。基於上述考慮，本席頒下暫准訟費令，即梁女士及陳先生須支付兩案三份之一 (1/3) 的訟費予港鐵，包括保留的訟費，連大律師証書，以區域法院準則，如數額不能協議，則由法庭評定。除非任何一方在14天內作出申請，否則成為絕對命令。

111.本席對李大律師的協助表示謝意。