|
LDPE000802/2002
LDPE 802 OF 2002
香港特別行政區
土地審裁處
申請編號2002年LDPE第802號
|
呂漢光 |
申請人 |
|
|
|
|
對 |
|
|
|
|
|
簡玉英 |
答辯人 |
|
|
|
|
對 |
|
|
|
|
|
Tam Muk Hing |
第三方 |
主審法官：周兆熊法官
宣判日期：2002年11月12日
______________
判 決 書
______________
1.本席需要對Tam Muk Hing女士分別於2002年10月30日 （“第一張傳票”）以及2002年11月6日（“第二張傳票”）提出的傳票申請作出裁決。
2.2002年8月13日，申請人在土地審裁處（“審裁處”）提出向答辯人追租及收回處所（尖沙咀金巴利街 22號地下樓梯口）的申 請，因為答辯人由2002年3月1日起未有繳付處所的租金。2002年 9月13日，在無反對的情況下，審裁處的署理副司法常務官判令申請人得直。
3．在第一張傳票，Tam Muk Hing提出以下的申請 ：
"1. the execution of the Writ of Possession be stayed pending the resolution of High Court Proceedings; and
2. Costs to be provided."
4．在支持申請的誓章（“第一份誓章”），Tam Muk Hing作出以下的陳述 ：
'1. I am the Third Party herein. On or about 17th October 2002, a Notice to Occupiers pursuant to a Writ of Possession at the stair entrance on Ground Floor, No. 22 Kimberley Street, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon. I am now seeking to apply for a stay of execution of the said Order.
2. My son, Leung Siu Man, had been running a business of plumbing and electric works at the said address which was a common area of a residential block since the late sixties. ............
3. In 1970, my son applied for a business registration certificate under the label of 長虹水電. ........................
4. There were times I had been assisting my son in running the said business.
5. During the years, none of the owners in the said residential block ever queried our right in running our livelihood at the said address nor any of them ever asked either of us for any rent or payment of any kind for occupying the said address.
6. Indeed, both my son and I have been treating the said address as if it is our property. .......................
7. Sadly my son passed away in the early nineties. And I have been selling flowers at the said address since. ......................
8. In mid-1992, I was through my son-in-law, Leung Hung Kan, acquainted with Ng Kam Wah who was a plumber. Ng begged me whether he could utilize the said address as a contact point since he did not have a fixed abode for his business. I sympathized with his plight so I let Ng install a telephone line at the said address.
9. Ng also changed the iron grille because he could not withstand the wear and tear of the said address.
10. Later, Ng's wife, Kan Yuk Ying joined me in selling flowers at the said address for a period of five years. Ng's sister, Ng Lin Ho also came along to assist in the floral business.
11. Soon after Ng Lin Ho's arrival, Kan Yuk Ying left the said address.
12. At the beginning of this year, Ng Lin Ho was arrested by police for breaching the terms of stay in Hong Kong. She was not supposed to work in the territory since she was holding a Macau travel permit.
13. Ng Lin Ho was bailed out afterwards and she told me it was Kan Yuk Ying who tipped off the police which led to her arrest. She said she paid Kan Yuk Ying a total sum of HK$30,000 in return of her taking over the floral business at the said address.
14. On or about the 6th of March 2002, Ng Lin Ho left behind all the items including unpaid floral deliveries for me to handle. And I just carried on with the floral business as usual.
15. I have absolutely no idea of the alleged leasing of the said address. It is just ludicrous that Lui Hon Kwong could have rented my place to Kan Yuk Ying. I suspect it is no more an attempt to misappropriate land blatantly belonging to me.
16. Both Lui Hon Kwong and Kan Yuk Ying also commenced injunctive proceedings against me in the Court of First Instance (HCA 1428/2002). A copy of the Writ of Summons is now produced hereto and marked exhibit "TMH-6"
17. In the circumstance, I will humbly pray for an order that the execution of the Writ of Possession be stayed pending the resolution of the High Court proceedings.'
5.HCA 1428/2002的傳票發出的日期是2002年4月16日。
6.2002年11月5日，本席審理第一張傳票的申請。在聆訊進行時，代表Tam Muk Hing的張大律師就HCA 1428/2002一案作出事實的陳述。本席向張大律師表示，正確的方式應該是以誓章的形式，將有關的事項及文件披露。本席應張大律師的要求，將聆訊押後至2002年 11月8日，以待Tam Muk Hing披露HCA 1428/2002的文件。
7．2002年11月6日，Tam Muk Hing在審裁處提出第二張傳票。傳票的申請是“an application on the part of the TAM MUK HING for an order that TAM MUK HING be added as a Third Party to the proceedings”。在同一日，Tam Muk Hing向審裁處存檔以下的誓章 （“第二份誓章”） ：
‘本人譚木慶現將原訟庭案件編號HCA 1428/2002所有法庭存檔文件呈交土地審裁處批閱。上述所指的法庭存檔文件為證物標記“TMH - 7”
本人在2002年4月19日親自上原訟庭應訊該案件 HCA 1428/2002禁制令的申請。當日主審法官將案件押後聆訊，因為我提出要申請法援署的幫助，事後法援署否決我的申請個案。
本人現申請加入土地審裁處案件LDPE 802/2002為第三 方。”
8．“TMH - 7”的第一份文件是Tam Muk Hing對HCA 1428/2002一案的答辯及反申索書。這份文件是於2002年11月5日在高等法院原訟庭存檔的。在反申索書Tam Muk Hing要求法庭對Lui Hon Kwong及其他4名被告頒佈以下的命令 ：
"(iii) all the estate, right, title benefit and interest in the Premises be vested in the Plaintiff;
(iv) the name of the Plaintiff be entered in the register kept in the Land Registry as the registered owner of the Premises."
9．在第二份誓章中，Tam Muk Hing沒有解釋為何第一份誓章沒有提及反申索書中指述的“權利”，她亦無提及反申索書中指稱的權利與第二張傳票申請的關係；她亦沒有述明第二張傳票申請的目的。簡單來說，該誓章沒有披露任何具體的事實作為第二張傳票申請的依據。
10.第二張傳票的申請
第二張傳票申請是根據《土地審裁處規則》第11條提出的。第11條有以下的條文 ：
“在法律程序的任何階段，審裁處可應某一方的申請或在無人提出申請的情況下，將任何人的名字或名稱加入或替代任何一方，或自任何一方的名單中剔除。”
（底線後加）
10.1這申請是由Tam Muk Hing提出的，但LDPE 802/2002一案的與訟雙方是申請人及答辯人；Tam Muk Hing並非是訴訟的任何一方，故此她無權根據第11條提出這申請。
10.2有關第三方（third party）及相類法律程序的條文是由《高等法院規則》第16號命令所規範的。根據第16號命令的規定，只有被告才可發出第三方通知書，將某人變為第三方，但LDPE 802/2002一案的答辯人並無提出第三方的通知書，故此Tam Muk Hing不能成為該案第三方。
11．第一張傳票的申請
第一張傳票是Tam Muk Hing根據《高等法院規則》第45號命令第11條規則提出的。第11條有以下的規定 ：
“在不損害第47號命令第1條的原則下，凡有任何判決或命令針對任何一方作出，該一方可以該判決或命令的日期後所發生的任何事宜為理由，向法庭申請擱置執行該判決或命令或申請其他濟助，而法庭可藉命令批予該濟助，並可施加其認為公正的條款。
（底線後加）”
11.1依據第11條規則提起的申請只可由“判決或命令針對”的一方作出。Tam Muk Hing並不是LDPE 802/2002案件的一方。該案的勝訴令是針對答辯人，而不是針對Tam Muk Hing而作出的，故此她無權藉第11條的規則提出第一張傳票的申請。
12．基於上述的理由，本席撤銷Tam Muk Hing兩張傳票的申請。
13．Tam Muk Hing須支付申請人及答辯人有關上述兩張傳票申請的訟費。如該訟費的款額未能獲得議定，則該款額由法庭審定。
申請人：親自應訊。（無律師代表）
答辯人：親自應訊。（無律師代表）
Tam Muk Hing：由徐家駒律師行代表。
|