秦富強 訴 啟勝管理服務有限公司

LDBM000272/2000

LDBM 272 OF 2000

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2000年第272號

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣判日期：2001年10月20日

______________

判 決 書

______________

1．申請人的申請，是要求土地審裁處（“審裁處”）頒佈下列的命令 ：

"1. The Respondent be ordered to make and file the affidavit/affirmation stating whether any/any class of documents specified or described in the attached letter dated 3/8/2001 and 10/8/2001, [referred to as exhibit "A", "B"] has any time been, in his possession, custody or power, and, if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with it and what has become of it.

2. The scheduled hearing be adjourned."

2.上述的申請是按《高等法院規則》第24號命令第7條規則進行的。第7條規則有以下的條文 ：

“(1) 除第8條規則另有規定外，法庭可在任何時間，應一宗訟案或事宜的任何一方的申請作出命令，規定任何另一方須作出一份誓章，述明申請所指明或描述的任何文件，或如此指明或描述的任何類別的文件，是否現正或曾在任何時間由他管有、保管或控制，如該份文件或該類別的文件當時並非由他管有、保管或控制，則須述明文件何時離手以及文件其後的情況如何。

(2) ……………………

(3) 要求根據本條規則作出命令的申請，必須由一份述明下述事宜的誓章支持，即宣誓人相信被要求根據本條規則作出文件透露的一方，現正或曾一度管有、保管或控制申請所指明或描述的文件或類別的文件，而該份文件或該類別的文件是關於有關訟案或事宜中的一項或多於一項有關事宜 的。”

3．對是次申請的動機，申請人在他的誓章有以下的陳述 ：

"3. A list of documents and bundle of documents had been received by the Applicant in December, 2000 and the second list of documents and bundle was received in June.

4. A lot of documents in the possession, custody or power relating to matter in question in the cause had not been mentioned by the Respondent's solicitor in the Lists of Documents.

............................

9. According to the Rules of High Court Cap 4 O. 24 r. 7, the Applicant would like this Honourable Court to make an order requiring the Respondent to make an affidavit stating whether any/any class of documents specified or described in the attached letter dated 3/8/2001 & 10/8/2001， [referred to as exhibit "A", B"] has any time been, in his possession, custody or power, and, if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with it and what has become of it. The applicant's belief that the specified or described documents relates to one or more of the matters in question in the cause or matter was also stated in the above mentioned letter."

4.在他的誓章以及上述兩封信件中，申請人並無述及他相信答辯人現正或曾一度管有、保管或控制申請所指明或描述的文件或類別的文件，故此申請人的申請，並不符合第7(3)條規則的規定。即使申請是符合第7(3)條的規定，這仍是不足夠的。在Berkeley Administration v. McClelland [1990] F.S.R. 381一案 (Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2001第400頁)，法庭重述有關作出第7條規則所根據的原則 ：

"(1) There is no jurisdiction to make an order under RSC, O. 24, r. 7, for the production of documents unless (a) there is sufficient evidence that the documents exist which the other party has not disclosed; (b) the document or documents relate to matters in issue in the action; (c) there is sufficient evidence that the document is in the possession, custody or power of the other party. (2) When it is established that those three prerequisites for jurisdiction do exist, the court has a discretion whether or not to order disclosure ...................."

5.在2001年8月3日的信中，申請人說："I would like to inspect all the accounts books of the estate mentioned in your letter dated 15/06/2001"，但申請人並無將15/06/2001的信件的內容在誓章中引述出 來，故此本席不知道該信的內容，亦不知道有關的帳簿是那些年份的帳簿。

6．日期為2001年8月10日的信件的內容是有關申請人向答辯人解釋他要求後者交出某些文件的理由。

7．在所有有關是次傳票申請的文件中，申請人並無舉出証據証明答辯人現正管有、保管或控制在上述兩函件內提及的文件，故此他並無作出符合Berkeley Administration v. McClelland一案所列出(c)項的規定。

8．基於上述的理由，本席撤銷申請人的第一項申請。

9．申請人的第一項申請既然失敗，則訟案無須被押後審理，故此本席撤銷申請人的第二項申請。

10．申請人須支付答辯人是次申請的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭訂定。

申請人：親自應訊。（無律師代表）

答辯人：由胡關李羅律師行代表。