The Incorporated Owners of Sai Kung Town Centre 訴 Yau Fook Hong Co Ltd and Others

LDBM000029/2002

LDBM 29/2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第29號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

聆訊日期: 2003年9月17日及9月18日

書面陳辭最後期限: 2003年10月13日

宣判日期: 2003年10月16日

_______________

判 案 書

_______________

1.申請人是新界西貢福民路22-40號西貢苑的業主立案法團，第1答辯人是西貢苑停車場及部份商舖的業主，而第2至第10答辯人（“答辯人”）是不同商舖的業主。2003年9月17日，本席批准申請人取消針對第11答辯人的申請。

2.申請人的申請是要求第1至第10名答辯人繳交由2001年7月1日至2001年12月31日欠交管理費的餘額，其順序為302,637元（218,085元 + 84,552元）、2,142元、768元、29,988元、1,062元、6,234元、1,860元、2,484元、1,062元以及0元。申請人指稱管理費的計算須以大廈公契D部第5條的規定計算；答辯人對上述的款額無爭議，但指稱他們沒有繳交該些款項的責任；在反對通知書的第4及第10段答辯人提出以下的抗辯理由：-

‘4．	In respect of expenditure incurred for the Building and its contribution by owners of the Buildings, the DMC contains, inter alias, express and/or implied terms of the following:-
	(a)	For expenditure of the Buildings related to and/or incurred for the use and/or benefit of all owners of the Buildings, it shall be contributed by owners of car parks, commercial units and domestic units of the Buildings in the respective percentages of 20%, 15% and 65%.
	(b)	For expenditure of the Buildings related to and/or incurred for the exclusive use and/or benefit of owners of certain part of or parts of the Buildings, it shall be contributed solely by owners of that part or parts of the Buildings.
	(c)	The manager of the Buildings shall have the sole right to decide and allocate the expenditure and provided such decision and allocation is made in good faith the same shall be binding on owners of the Buildings."
		............................
10.	Further or in the alternative, the Applicant, or the Management Limited, shall not be entitled to increase the monthly management fees as that pleaded in Paragraph 8 above, as there has never been any annual budget prepared by the Management Limited justifying any increase of monthly management fees. Furthermore, on 30th June, 2001, there was accumulated in the account of "Commercial Units" a surplus of over one million dollars, as a result of payment of management fee by owners of commercial units for the past years. Therefore, there should be adequate funds to meet the monthly management operation of commercial units without any increase of management fee.'

2.1就第4段的抗辯理由，答辯人在第5段提出LDBM409/2000一案的裁決以作支持。

3.有關管理開支的條文是載於公契Section IV的D部；D部共有7條條文，但與本案有關的只有以下5條 ：

"1.	For the purpose of fixing the contributions payable by the owners of the Building, the Manager shall prepare an annual budget, showing the estimated expenditure in respect of the Building.
2.	The said budget shall cover all costs, charges, expenses and outgoings incurred in relation to the management and maintenance of the Building whether the Manager be obliged hereunder to incur such costs, charges, expenses and outgoings or not and including without limiting the generality of the foregoing the following terms:
	(a)	Crown Rent and all sums payable under the Conditions
	(b)	The cost of carrying out all or any of the duties of the Manager ..........
	(c)	The cost of carrying out all or any of the duties of the Manager set out in this Deed governing the Building.
	(d)	The cost of purchasing or hiring all necessary plant equipment and machinery for the proper management of the Building.
	(e)	The cost of employing staff to administer the management of the Building.
	(f)	Any rent rates or other sums including water, gas, electricity, ........ for the use of any buildings or other parts of the Building for management or administrative offices .............. in connection with the management of the Buildings.
	(g)	..........
	(h)	All water, gas, electricity, telephone and other service charges in respect of the Common Areas and Common Facilities.
	(i)	The cost of all fuel and oil incurred in connection with the operation of the plant, equipment, machinery and vehicles provided for the benefit of the Building or any part thereof.
		.............
		.............
	(p)	Any other expenditure which is in the absolute discretion of the Manager necessary for the good estate management of the Building.
3.	Where any expenditure relates principally to the Common Areas or Common Facilities or providing service to the Building or any part or parts thereof (and whether it so relates shall be exclusively decided by the Manager) such expenditure shall form part of the Management Expenses and be borne by the Owners accordingly.
4.	The Manager shall have the sole right to decide and allocate the expenditure mentioned in Clause 2 of this Sub-Section D and provided such decision and allocation is made in good faith the same shall be binding (save for manifest error) on the Owners.
5.	The Management Expenses of the Building (including the Manager's Remuneration) shall be contributed by the Owners of the following in the following percentages:
	(i)	The Multi-storey Car Park 20%
	(ii)	The Commercial Units 15%
	(iii)	The Domestic Units 65% "

4.根據公契的釋義部份，"Management Expenses”是指“The costs, charges expenses and outgoings incurred in relation to the management and maintenance of the Building whether the Manager be obliged under this Deed to incur such costs, charges, expenses and outgoings or not”，而“the Building”是指‘The whole of the development on the Lot to be known as "SAI KUNG TOWN CENTRE"（西貢苑）, including all buildings thereon’，因此“Management Expenses”是指整個西貢苑的管理費。

5.公契第3條是與管理費的繳付或分攤方法無關。

6.公契第4條是關於經理人擁有權力的條文，經理人有權對第2條述明的支出作出決定及分配。這決定及分配不是關於管理費的分擔，事實上第4條沒有提及“Management Expenses”一詞。“Management Expenses”及“Expenditure”是兩個不同的字，含有不同的內涵，因此第4條不是有關管理費如何在業主間分擔的條文。

7.公契第5條是唯一規定停車場、商業單位及住宅單位對管理費作出分擔比例的條文，因此管理費的分担須以此為依據。第5條關於管理費的分担並無定出一如反對通知書第4(a)(b)段所作出的分野。該條所指的管理費是涵蓋整個西貢苑的管理費，而該分擔比例適用於整個西貢苑。LDBM409/2000一案的裁決不正確，因此不可用於本案。

8.反對通知書的第7段及第8段分別指自從2001年7月1日起，申請人的管理公司依上述的比例（即 20%、15%及65%）作管理費的分攤,結果引致停車場及商業單位的每月管理費大幅增加，但住宅單位則沒有任何增加，該增加的細節如下 ：

		Old Fee	New Fee	Increase %
(a)	Car Parks	(total) $25,683	$60,030	133.7%
(b)	Shops	(total) $19,920	$46,550	133.7%
(c)	Residential	(total) $201,600	$201,600	0%

9.在反對通知書的第10段指答辯人無權如此將管理費增加，因為新的管理公司並無作出增加管理費的預算案。本席裁定申請人祇是按公契D部第5條的規定的規定收取管理費，答辯人因為前管理公司按“用者自付的原則”繳付某一款額的管理費，但申請人按公契的規定收取管理費，因而引致答辯人需多繳管理費，這是與管理費的增加無關，答辯人需多付管理費祇是管理公司重新按公契收取管理費所導致的結果而已。

10.在反對通知書的第10段答辯人又指在2001年6月30日，商業單位有1百萬管理費的盈餘，因此有足夠的基金以應付商業單位管理費的開支而無需增加管理費。一如前述，本案並不涉及管理費的增加，因此這理由不能成立。

11.基於上述的理由，本席裁定申請人針對第1至第9答辯人的申請得直，第1至第9答辯人須支付申請人欠判案書第2段列明的管理費餘

額。本席撤銷針對第10答辯人的申請。第1至第9答辯人須支付申請人欠交管理費的利息，利率按公契E部第2(1)條計算（即“Interest calculated at the rate of $1.50 for each $100.00 or part thereof remaining unpaid for each period of 30 days or part thereof for which it remains unpaid.”），直至清償為止。

訟費

12.本席頒下臨時訟費的命令 ：就針對第10答辯人的申請，本席不作出訟費的命令。第1至第9答辯人須支付申請人本案的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由法庭按高等法院訟費的水平為基準而予以評定。如在21天內與訟任何一方不向本席提出申請，此臨時訟費的命令作實。

申請人：由迪郎歐華律師行代表。

第一至第十答辯人：由梁錦濤關學林律師行代表。