|
LDBM000134A/2001
LDBM 134 OF 2001
香港特別行政區
土地審裁處
建築物管理申請編號2001年第134號
|
李鳳瓊 |
第一申請人 |
|
龍樹企業有限公司 |
第二申請人 |
|
伍清蘭 |
第三申請人 |
|
|
|
|
對 |
|
|
|
|
|
寶靈商業中心業主委員會 |
答辯人 |
主審法官 ：周兆熊法官
宣判日期 ：2002年1月17日
_________________________
覆 核 判 案 書
_________________________
1．2001年10月15日，本席頒下本案的判案書。2001年11月 14日，第一及第二申請人（“申請人"）要求覆核有關申請人第二項申請的裁決。申請人指2樓及3樓的業主從無享用冷氣系統提供的冷 氣，故此他們無須負担這方面的管理費。代表申請人的許大律師指有關冷氣系統（“中央冷氣系統”）的維修與運作的費用不應包括在管理費內。她說 ：
'6. If one reads clauses 3,4,5,6,17(d) & 20(k)(iii) of the SDMC as a whole, it is evident that the alleged liability to pay charges for operation and maintenance of the air-conditioning system are based on the assumption that the owners and occupiers of the 2nd and 3rd Floors do have rights and access to enjoy service provided by the air-conditioning system. The air-conditioning system should be commonly used by all the owners and occupiers of the Building........... It cannot be said that as there is air-conditioning system providing service to individual units of the Ground Floor and the 1st Floor, that the consumption of electricity generated from the air-conditioning system is common use. In fact, Clause 20(k)(iii) of the SDMC provides, inter alia, that: "No resolution shall be valid if it is contrary to the provisions of this Deed and or affect the proper enjoyment by the onwer of the unit owned by him ......" By requiring the 1st and 2nd Applicants to contribute towards electricity charges for operation of the air-conditioning system, regardless of whether or not they are entitled to commonly use the facilities of the air-conditioning in truth, would defeat their rights of enjoyment.'
2．第20(k)(iii)的條文是有關業主會議的條文，故此它對有關管理費的事宜並無關係。
3．許大律師又說 ：
"7. What should be included in 'monthly expenses/contribution' to be contributed by individual owner in terms of management expenses has never been expressly stipulated in Clause 4 of or any other clauses of the SDMC. Reference to 'separately metered' of Clause 6 clearly caters for the situation where individual owner and occupier of the Building does not have exclusive use and enjoyment to what is provided for in the common parts as defined in the SDMC and is not liable to pay for charges incurred thereby. It. therefore, would be wrong to add up the total electricity charges for air-conditioning for consumption in each individual unit of the Ground Floor and the 1st Floor in the Building to the monthly management expenses and require all owners or occupiers of units, irrespective of whether or how much electricity is consumed, to bear a portion of the total charges calculated according to the number of management unit he or she was allocated in the Building."
分公契第6條規定一名業主祇須負責繳付他的樓房單位的差餉、物業稅及水電費，而無須為別一樓房單位的業主繳付同類的費用。這是與公用部份的費用無關的條文，故此許大律師利用第6條的條文以支持她的說 法是不恰當的。
4．按分公契第4條的規定，大廈的管理費是以整幢大廈的支出計算的。大廈的公用地方（common parts）的支出，無可置疑是為這支出所涵蓋的。本席首先要確定中央冷氣系統是否屬於“common parts” （“公用部份”），公契的附表2有以下的條文 ：
"The common parts shall include the following: -
(1) .................
(2) The equipment apparatus and installations of and in the Bowring Centre intended for common use by the owner and occupier of the said premises and the Bowring Centre including inter alia, the Lift serving the Second and Third Floors, the transformer room, switch room, store room, Fan Room, A/C Room, Lavalines, air-conditioning system, fire alarm and security system etc.
(3) ..................
(4) .................."
（原文無底線）
上述條文清楚顯示“air-conditioning system” （“中央冷氣系統”）是屬於公用部份的一部份。涉及中央冷氣系統的支出可分為兩部份：管理費用及維修保養費用。據分公契第15條的規定，寶靈大廈的經理人負有管理公用部份的責任。本席將第15條與此有關的部份後列如 下 ：
"15. (c) ............... the Manager shall have the following powers namely:
(1) .....................
(2) To arrange for refuse disposal from each unit and the common parts.
(3) To keep in good order and repair the lighting and ventilation of the common parts.
(4) To keep the common parts in good sanitary state and condition.
(5) To repair and keep in good repair and condition the common parts.
(6) To paint and whitewash ..... common parts of the Bowring Centre at such intervals...........
(7) To keep the common parts in good, clean and sanitary repair and condition and to renew and replace any parts that may become damaged or defective.
(8) ............................
(9) To keep in good repair and condition all common parts including, inter alia, ............... A/C Room
(10) To keep the common parts including inter alias the machine rooms ......... in good repair and condition and to replace any part that may require replacement.
(11) To prevent obstruction of any of the common parts."
5．經理人須管理這些公用部份，而整幢大廈的業主須支付經理人管理酬金。這是屬於分公契第4(a)條的費用。公用部份亦須因日常的維修和保養而產生費用。這是屬於分公契第4(b)條的費用。大廈的中央冷氣系統既是大廈的公用部份之一，按公契第5條的規定，業主須支付的費用須按第5條指明的管理單位分擔。
6．許大律師在2002年1月15日呈交的陳辭中指如果大廈某項設施祇是提供大廈某部份的用戶使用（即大廈地下和1樓用戶使用中央冷氣系統），有關的費用應由大廈地下和1樓用戶支付有關費用；大廈公契雖無就此情況作出明文規定，但在釋譯公契第三和第四條條款下，若將此列為公契的隱含條款之一是合理的，但本席裁定附表2所載的有 關公用部份的 釋義排除此可能性。
7.許大律師又指大廈經理人往年徵收各戶的管理費並無將中央冷氣系統設備涉及的電費、維修保養費用和更新冷氣機費納入2樓和 3樓用戶所需繳交的管理費用範疇之內，故此在法律上構成經理人已放棄申請人需分攤中央冷氣機系統設備所產生的一切費用之義務的一個重要抗辯理由。
8．首先，按《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）第18(1)(c)條的規 定，法團須採取一切合理必需的措施，以執行公契（如有的話）載明有關建築物的控制、管理、行政事宜的責任，而按第18(2)(c)條，法團可聘請並付酬予經理人，以由其代表法團執行法團根據條例或公契（如有的話）而有的職責或權力。大廈經理人並無將中央冷氣系統的費用納入2樓和3樓用戶需繳交的管理費用之內的事實，祇是反映出它不遵從和執行公契的規定；根本上它無權這樣做。答辯人現時的做法是去糾正過往的錯誤。
9．經理人並非答辯人；答辯人無權放棄條例所規定需要負起的法律責任。根據申請人的說法，2樓和3樓的業主無責任繳交中央冷氣系統的費用，既然如此，經理人便無權向這些業主收取這些費用，它又怎會有該些“權利”去放棄？許大律師的論據不能成立。
10.管理方案有關備用（維修工程）基金（以10,000元為基數）是按條例第20(2)條的規定所設立，各業主分擔的款額是以按照業主各自所佔的業權份數確立。
11．覆核聆訊的証供顯示備用基金設立的目的主要是用於中央冷氣系統的日常維修和保養。經理人須按公契第15(c)(5)的條文對中央冷氣系統作出維修及保養。這是涉及經常性的支出，該些費用屬於公契 第4(b)條的“other outgoings”的範圍，故此根據第5條的規定，業主 所需分擔的費用，須按他們所佔的管理單位（management units）的份數來計算。
12．本席頒令 ：
1． 與第二項申請有關的管理方案的備用（維修工程）基金以業權份數作為確定分擔費用的基準的方案並不符合分公契的規定，故此是無效的方案。除此之外，本席維持原判。
13．訟費
本席頒下臨時訟費的命令 ：
1． 本席取消2001年10月15日的訟費命令，而代之以下列的命令 ：三名申請人須支付予答辯人3/5的訟費，即 1,560元（2,600元×3/5）；
2． 第一及第二申請人須支付答辯人3/5覆核聆訊的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭審定；
3． 如在21天內與訟任何一方不向本席提出申請，則此項臨時命令作實。
第一及第二申請人：由趙資權律師行代表。
答辯人 ：由梁冠先生代表。（無律師代表）
|