The Incorporated Owners of Cheong Fu Mansion 訴 Wo Cheong Properties Co Ltd

LDBM000281/2002

LDBM 281 OF 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281號

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣判日期：2003年4月9日

______________

判 決 書

______________

1．本案的申請是答辯人按《土地審裁處規則》第27條提出的。它要求土地審裁處（“審裁處”）頒令申請人以完全彌償基準（按高等法院水平計算）支付答辯人本案的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭審定。第27條規定 ：

“(1) 任何一方，藉向另一方送達表示將法律程序中止或將部分法律程序撤回的通知書，即可無須審裁處許可而將法律程序中止或將部份法律程序撤回。

(2) 獲送達第(1)款所述通知書的一方，可在通知書送達14天內，向審裁處申請作出關於訟費的命令，而除《業主與租客（綜合）條例》（第7章）另有規定外，審裁處可作出其認為合適的命令。

(3) ………………”

2．答辯人指稱申請人以不正當和具壓迫性的方法（improper and oppressive manner）進行它的申請。它的理據臚列如下 ：

"(a) By a letter dated 7 August 2002 from A's former solicitors, Messrs. Thomas Li & Yu ("TLY"), A demanded R to vacate the lavatories adjacent to Shop 1A & 1B, Ground Floor, Cheong Fu Mansion, Fife Street, Kowloon (the "2 Lavatories"): ...............

(b) By a letter dated 10 August 2002, R's solicitors, Baker & McKenzie ("B&M") requested for supporting documents showing that the 2 Lavatories form part of the common area of Cheong Fu Mansion, but A refused to provide such information: ..................

(c) B&M wrote to TLY on 23 October 2002 enclosing a copy of Assignment Memorial No.4155196 and the floor plan annexed to Assignment Memorial No.1879734. The floor plan clearly shows that R's property includes the 2 Lavatories: ............... R made it clear that it: "reserves its rights to claim your client [A] for all the legal costs and other expenses incurred in this matter and generally.";

(d) But A refused to back off and asked B&M if they have instructions to accept service on behalf of R: ..................

(e) By a letter dated 5 November 2002 from B&M to TLY, R made it clear to A that: "should your client [A] proceed to bring in the courts...our client shall seek to recover costs against your client [A] on an indemnity basis"..............

(f) A's application was filed on 5 November 2002;

(g) R filed a notice of opposition on 26 November 2002;

(h) By a letter from B&M to TLY dated 29 November 2002, R made it clear to A that its claims are totally groundless and without merit and that R will be seeking costs on an indemnity/on the highest basis: ........................

(i) By a letter from TLY to B&M dated 27 December 2002, A intended to proceed with the BM Application against R: .......................

(j) A filed a notice of discontinuance on 12 March 2003;

(k) By a letter from B&M to TLY dated 13 March 2003, R invited A to agree to an order for costs by consent. A did not reply to this letter; ...................."

3．本席需要考慮申請人是否在明知沒有道理或根據的情況下，它仍然提出或繼續本案的申請。在與答辯人的來往書信中，申請人並無承認它的申請是無理據的。在沒有審訊的情況下，本席不能裁定申請人的申請是否有理據的支持。沒有該事實的裁定，本席不判定申請人是否以不正當及壓迫性的方式進行它的申請，所以本席不能命令申請人以完全彌償的基礎支付答辯人的訟費。

4．自2000年9月1日至2002年12月26日，審裁處祇能作出以高等法院的訟費水平表作為評定訟費的基準的頒令。

5．答辯人的陳辭書及誓章（affidavit of Wai Siu Chung, Dominic）具有支持為何訟費的支付要以完全彌償作為基準的作用。該陳辭不能成立，故此申請人不須支付有關陳辭書及誓章的制定所涉及的訟費。

6．本席頒令 ：

1． 申請人無須支付有關陳辭書及Wai Siu Chung, Dominic誓章的制定所涉及的訟費；

2． 除第1項命令提述的訟費外，申請人須以高等法院的訟費水平支付答辯人本案的訟費（包括本傳票申請的訟費），如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭審定。

申請人：由陳開權先生代表。 （無律師代表）

答辯人：由麥堅時律師行代表。