Great Source Enterprise Ltd 訴 Sino Estates Management Ltd

LDBM000167/2001

LDBM 167/2001

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2001年第167號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

審訊日期: 2003年5月14日、7月5日、7月19日

宣判日期: 2003年8月12日

_______________

判 決 書

_______________

1.2001年4月9日，申請人提出本案的申請。按《建築物管理條例》附表10第5(c)段土地審裁處對本案有司法管轄權。

2.2002年9月27日，答辯人提出傳票申請，要求土地審裁處將申請人的申請剔除。

3.申請人是No.8 Yin Ping Road, Dynasty Heights（"the Development"）業主之一；答辯人是Dynasty Heights 的經理人。申請人在申請通知書內對答辯人有以下的指稱:-

"10. As the Manager of the Development, the Respondent owes a duty under the DMC to the owners of the development and it was an implied term of the DMC that the Respondent would (i) manage the Development in a proper manner and exercise all due care, skill and diligence in the performance of its duties under the DMC; (ii) act for the best interest of all owners of the Development in discharge of its duty and must not prefer the interest of one or more owners at the expense of others and put itself in a position which conflicts with the interest of the owners; (iii) maintain a proper security system within Dynasty Heights to protect all residents.

11. In breach of its duty under the DMC and the implied terms under the DMC, the Respondent (i) fails to maintain proper security of the Development for the protection of the residents of the Development; (ii) did not act for the best interest of the owners of the Development in discharge of its duty and preferred the interest of Victory World Limited at the expenses of all other owners; (iii) put itself in a position which conflict with the interest of the owners; and (iv) did not manage the Development in a proper manner and exercise all due care, skill and diligence in that: -

(1) the Respondent fails to take heed of and implement the proposals made by Sing-Ho Security Services Limited.............As a result, there were frequent burglaries and criminal damages;

(2) the Respondent fails to deploy ............ sufficient security guards to provide security service for the Development.

(3) the Respondent fails to supervise and control the quality of service provided by and the conduct of Uniformity; ........................

(4) the Respondent fails to install sufficient video-cameras and coverage in the Development, in particular the car-park of the Development;

(5) the Respondent fails to install effective closed circuit T.V system and coverage within the Development;

(6) the Respondent fails to maintain a proper security system within the Development............

(7) the Respondent fails to install sufficient security facilities in the Development to prevent robbers, burglars and illegal immigrants from entering Dynasty Heights.........

(8) ................

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

30. By reasons of the Respondent's breach of its duty and the DMC, the Plaintiff and all other owners of the Development except Victory World Limited suffer loss and damages.

Particulars

The Plaintiff and all other owners of the Development had been deprived of their right to the benefit of having and enjoying a proper security system including but not limited to installation of sufficient security facilities and deployment of sufficient security guards and claim against Victory World Limited for management deficit arising from such installation of security facilities and other security services which ought to have been but had not been done by the Respondent within the first two years of occupation.

31. ..........................

32. It is an implied term of the DMC that as manager and agent of the owners of the Development under the DMC that, the Respondent must not allow its personal interests to conflict with those of all owners. In particular, the Respondent shall show no favour and act impartially in the preparation to convene the owners' meeting under clause 46 of the DMC. In breach of the aforesaid duty under the DMC and the implied term under the DMC, the Respondent had shown its favour to some of the candidates in the election of members of the Owners' Committee of the Development.

Particulars

(i) Prior to the election of members of the Owners' Committee on divers dates in about February and March 2000, the staff or agent of the Respondent, accompanied some of the candidates to visit the residents of the Development.........

(ii) The Respondent also arranged its preferred candidates to sit in the front row during the election held in March 2000.

(iii) The Respondent had also procured Victory World Limited, the developer and first owner of the Development to vote for the Respondent's preferred candidates."

4.申請人要求審裁處頒佈以下的命令:-

"(a) a declaration that the Respondent has failed to discharge its duty under the DMC and has breached the implied term of the DMC in failing to provide proper and sufficient security service for protecting the owners of the Development under the DMC and to act for the best interest of the owners and in preferring the interest of Victory World Limited at the expense of the other owners and in putting itself in a position which conflicts with those of the owners.

(b) a declaration that the acts of the Respondent pleaded in paragraph 32 are unlawful and unauthorized under the DMC;

(c) an injunction to restrain the Respondent by itself or by its agents or servants or otherwise howsoever from favouring or rendering assistance to secure or obtain votes for individual candidates during the coming election of members of Owner's Committee of the Development in 2001 or subsequent years;

(d) damages to be assessed;"

5.大廈公契第43條界定在那些情況下經理人才須為自己的行為對屋邨的業主負上責任:-

"(43) The Manager, its servants, agents or contractors shall not be liable to the Owners or any of them or to any person or persons whomsoever whether claiming through, under or in trust for any Owner or otherwise, for in respect of any act, dead, matter or thing done or omitted in pursuance or purported pursuance of the provisions of this Deed not being an act or omission involving criminal liability or dishonesty or gross negligence and the Owners shall fully and effectually indemnify the Manager, its servants, agents or contractors from and against all actions, proceedings, claims and demands whatsoever arising directly or indirectly act of or in connection with much act, deed, matter or thing done or omitted as aforesaid and all costs and expenses in connection therewith. Without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Manager, its servants, agents or contractors shall not be held liable for any damage, loss or injury caused by or in any way arising out of

(a) any defect in or failure or breakdown of any of the Common Areas and facilities, or

(b) any failure, malfunction or suspension of the supply of water, electricity or other utility or service to the Development, or

(c) fire or flooding or the overflow or leakage of water from anywhere whether within or outside the Development, or

(d) the activity of termites, cockroaches , rats, mice or other pests or vermin, or

(e) theft, burglary or robbery within the Development;

UNLESS it can be shown that such damage, loss or injury was caused by an wilful act or omission of the Manager, its servants, agents or contractors involving criminal liability or dishonesty or gross negligence ...... "

（底線後加 ）

6.第43條規定經理人只須為涉及 "criminal liability"（“刑事責任”） 或 "dishonesty"（“不誠實”）或 "gross negligence"（“嚴重疏忽”）的作為或不作為向業主負責。本裁決的關鍵在於申請通知書的指稱之事是否涉及上述3個範圍。第10段內第(i)和第(iii)隱含條款屬同性質的隱含條款；它們涵蓋第11段內第(1)至第(7)項提述之事，而第(ii)款涵蓋第(8)項提述之事。

7．第(i)及第(iii)隱含條款

7.1公契的明示條款是否可以構成第(i)及第(iii)隱含條款？首先隱含條款不能與合約內明示條款的含義互相矛盾。申請通知書第4段公契第36(t)條關於“保安管理”事宜的部份是否會與隱含條款互相矛盾？第36條有以下的條文:-

"36. ..........the Manager shall have full and unrestricted authority to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or expedient for or in connection with the Development and the management thereof including in particular but without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing:－

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

(t) To provide and maintain as the Manager deems necessary security force, watchmen, porters, caretakers, closed circuit T.V. system and burglar alarms and other security measures in the Development at all times;"

（原文無底線）

7.2第36條(t)規定經理人有權在它認為需要的情況下提供和保持(t)款提述的人和事物。什麼是它認為需要的情況？這個決定是須由經理人作出的。(t)款並無規定經理人在作出決定時需要遵從的準則，但申請人所指的第(iii)項隱含條款規定答辯人須保持 "a proper security system"。這意味與(t)條有關的“security system”須符合一個所謂 "proper”的標準。這根本上不是(t)條的規定，因此(t)條與第(iii)條的隱含條款互相衝突，二者不能並存，既然(t)條賦予答辯人的權力不含 "proper”的準則，該隱含條款便不能存在，而答辯人違反此條款的指稱亦不能成立。同樣地第(i)隱含條款所指的 "proper manner" 及“due care”顯示經理人的作為或不作為須依從某一標準，即 "proper manner" 及 "due care" 的標準，但第36條沒定下任何經理人須依從的準則。它授予經理人的是“full and unrestricted authority to do all such acts and things as may be necessary or expedient for or in connection with the Development and the management thereof”。第36條與第(i)隱含條款互相衝突，兩者不能並存，既然經理人獲得第36條的權力，公契含有第(i)隱含條款的指稱便不能成立。

8．第(ii)隱含條款

8.1第(ii)隱含條款涵蓋申請通知書的第11(8)段及第27段。該兩段有以下的條款:-

"11. .................

(8) The Respondent dishonestly and willfully kept down the management expenses by not installing sufficient securities facilities and deploying sufficient security staff for reason set out in paragraph 27 hereof.

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

27. The Respondent had purposely kept down the management expenses by not installing sufficient security facilities and deploying sufficient security staff so as to minimize the liability of Victory World Limited in fulfilling the collateral warranty."

8.2申請人是於2001年4月9日提出本案的申請，直至2002年7月29日申請人修改申請通知書，才加入第27段，但它沒有使用“dishonestly”的字。在2003年7月11日，當申請人再次修改申請通知書它才加入第11(8)段。但此段實質上與第27段並無分別，申請人只是將第27段的“had purposely kept down”代之以“dishonestly and willfully kept down”。雖然經過修改，申請人並無在申請通知書中提出事實以支持“dishonestly and willfully kept down the management express”的指控，但就違反第(i)及第(iii)隱含條款的指稱，申請人則羅列第11(1)至(7)段的事實以支持其指控。Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2002, 第1冊第18/12/11段（第286頁）有以下的規定:-

"An allegation that a party has been guilty of bad faith or lack of good faith is the equivalent of an allegation of dishonesty, though not necessarily for a financial motive, and proper particulars of such an allegation must be pleaded, otherwise the allegation will be struck out (Cannock Chase D.C. Kelly[1978]/W.L.R.1)."

8.3申請人既然沒有在申請通知書中提出事實支持有關“dishonestly and willfully kept down the management expenses”的指控，該指控必須被剔除。

9．有關業主委員會選舉的指控

9.1在申請通知書的第32段申請人作出以下的指控:-

"........ the Respondent shall show no favour and act impartially in the preparation to convene the owners' meeting under Clause 4.6 of the DMC. In breach of the aforesaid duty under the DMC and the implied term under the DMC, the Respondent had shown its favour to some of the candidates in the election of members of the Owners' Committee of the Development.

Particulars

(i) Prior to the election of members of the Owners' Committee ............ the staff or agent of the Respondent accompanied some of the candidates to visit the residents of the Development ...............

(ii) The Respondent also arranged its preferred candidates to act on the front row during the election

(iii) The Respondent had also proved Victory World Limited, the developer and first owner of the Development to vote for the Respondent's preferred candidates."

9.2按公契第36條的條文經理人有不受限制的權力做它認為需要（necessary）做的事。這權力是按它的需要與否而運用的。第43條將經理人對業主的責任局限於“criminal liability”，“dishonesty”及“gross negligence” 的責任，而答辯人所指的隱含責任不入於這範圍，因此申請人指稱的隱含責任根本上不能成立。

10．申請人的指控沒有任何一部份是屬於第43條所指的“an act or omission involving criminal liability or dishonesty or gross negligence”，申請人的申請屬於《高等法院規則》第18號命令第19(1)(b)條所指瑣屑無聊的申請，沒有成功的希望。

11．申請人的代表莫大律師指答辯人承認 "negligence or even gross negligence"。上述的指稱是不正確的。答辯人的林大律師在陳詞中說:-

"(a) The alleged delay is the crux of the argument. But there is no solid foundation for any allegation of delay ................

(b) In any event, even if the Respondent delayed in response, it is equally consistent with negligence or even gross negligence, ............... rather than dishonesty."

（原文無底線）

12.林大律師指出延誤的指控並無堅實的基礎；在有延誤的假設為前題之下，他才提及“gross negligence”，因此他並沒有代答辯人作出“negligence or gross negligence”的承認。莫大律師又說‘R is liable to compensate the owners, including A, at least for any loss and damage caused by a "wilful act or omission" involving "dishonesty or gross negligence", in the alternative’。這是指公契第43條中(a)至(e)事件中引致產生的“damage, loss or injury”，本案的申請並非是以該些“damage, loss or injury”作為基礎。莫大律師在這方面的陳辭是與本案無關。

13．基於上述的理由，申請人的申請需予以剔除，本席將該申請撤銷。

14．訟費

本席頒佈臨時訟費的命令 ：申請人需支付予答辯人本案訟費（包括聘請大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額按高等法院訟費水平為基準而予以評定。如在14天內與訟任何一方不向本席提出申請，上述臨時訟費命令作實。

申請人： 由黃許律師行行代表

答辯人： 由胡關李羅律師行代表。