Lo Chi Ho and Another 訴 Wong Wing Yee Wendy

LDBM000321B/2002

LDBM 321/2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第321號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

覆核審訊日期: 2003年8月14日

宣判日期: 2003年8月26日

___________________________

覆 核 判 案 書

___________________________

1.申請人提出5個理由, 要求本席覆核於2003年7月18日頒下的判決。

2.法律地位

申請人說： 'The power, and also duty to manage the common parts of the Building shall be vested in "the chairman of the owners' Committee" or "other owners appointed by the owners' Committee" but not an individual owner. [Clause 4(d)(iii) DMC]'. 本案涉及的建築物（“建築物”）的公契第4條有以下的條文：－

“ 4. Without prejudice to the rights of the owners for the time being of the said Land and the said Building to incorporate themselves as an owners incorporation under the provisions of the Building Management Ordinance, Cap.344 and to manage the said Land and the said Building in accordance with such provisions, the parties hereto shall as soon as practicable after the execution of these presents but in any event not later than 12 months from the date of such execution, establish an owners' committee for the purpose of managing the said Building and the said Land and elect among themselves a chairman of the owners' committee ...

2.1.答辯人沒有提出証據証明業主委員會已經成立，因此公契第4條不適用於本案，再者，天台的小屋並不是位於公用的地方。根據《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）第45(4)條授予的權力，申請人有權以業主身份提起本案的申請。

2.2.答訴人指稱"......s.45 is not a blank cheque for the applicants who have not come with clean hands in light of their wrongdoings mentioned below." 行使條例第45(2)(4)條授予的權利與申請人是否曾作出不對之事無關。只要是屬於第45（4）條適用的人，該人便可提出第45（1）條所指明的法律程序，這提起訴訟的權力是無需滿足其他條件的，因此答辯人的理由不能成立。

2.3.答辯人指兩名申請人作出5項錯誤之事：－

1. Mr. Steven Lam, the expert witness for the Applicants admitted at the trial that there are openings on the south-east side of the whole estate, including the Applicants' floor ..............' The Applicants should not be allowed to enforce the DMC against the Respondent and claimed equitable relief when he himself has failed to observe the terms therein.

2. The split-type air-conditioner installed or kept by the Applicants on the external walls through which there is/are ducts) connecting to the interior of the Applicants' unit ......

3. The hand writings caused by the Applicants to be made to the wall inside the staircase as admitted by the Applicants at the trial.

4. The wall-mounted fire extinguisher caused by the Applicants to be affixed inside the staircase.

5. The failure of the Applicant to dispose of waste in a proper manner.

2.4.本席難以明白，如果答辯人認為申請人在第1、第2、第4及第5項提述的作為是錯誤的行為，何以她不作出反申索，以待本席作出事實的裁定。

2.5.本席並無裁決第1、第2及第4項是否違法。上述數項是否違反法律的行為要從証據作出事實的裁定，然後將適用的法律（如有的話）應用於該些事實，以決定該等行為是否違反法律，例如就第1項來說，建築物在東南方有“開口”（Openings）,不等於就是違反法律的行為。本席不知道該些“開口”是何時建造，亦不知道它們是否得到政府的批准才建造。答辯人沒有在反對通知書提出這點（以及第2、3、4及5點）“錯誤行為”作為答辯的理由，故此本席沒有作出有關的裁決（第3 點除外），因此答辯人提出的錯誤行為的理由不能成立。

2.6.就第3點而言，本席已將其作為反申索撤銷。這怎可仍算作申請人的錯誤行為？就第5點而言，本案完全沒有涉及申請人處理垃圾不當的証供。

3.默許（天台小屋）

申請人指 "The 1st Applicant, Mr. Lo admitted at the trial that he know that the roof house was not erected by the Respondent but by her predecessor-in-title. Further, the 1st Applicant gave no reason when asked why he did not take any action against the Respondent's predecessor-in-title for the roof house. ............ The roof house was erected by the Respondent's predecessor-in-title in 1997. ...................... The Applicants must be taken to have acquiesced the erection, and existence of the roof house by their inaction in the meantime." 反對通知書並無“默許”這個答辯理由。假設這是答辯理由之一，她需要負起舉証的責任，她需要証明申請人知道該小屋是違反公契的條款，而違反公契的條款可能會導致政府收回建築物所在的地段。証物A2內的 "LCH-8"所載的Approval Letter 列出18項建造建築物所需遵守的條件，本席在判案書第2.4段已裁決該Letter of Approval 是構成政府租約的一部份；而根據公契第6條規定建築物的業主須遵守政府租約的條款，該Letter of Approval 的第4段規定：

"Failure to abide by these conditions may render the above lot(s) liable to re-entry by Government for breach of lease conditions."

3.1.因天台小屋的關係，建築物位在西北方向的高度是9.15米而在東南方的高度是9.53米。根據Letter of Approval第1段（v）項的規定，建築物的高度不可超過8.23米。因為小屋的關係，建築物已超過8.23米的限制，因此答辯人沒有遵守公契第6條的規定。如要默許的舉証成功，答辯人須証明盧志豪知悉因為天台小屋的關係，建築物的高度已超過限制，而由於這個原因可能會導致政府收回有關地段，答辯人沒有提出這方面的証據。郭惠珍沒有作証，而答辯人又沒有就默許之事針對她提出任何這方面的証據，因此這項的理由不能成立。

4.申請人辯說答辯人指鐵閘的建造並無違反公契。她說，"With respect, Clause 2 of the DMC ought to be considered in full. In essence, the right of access to and entitlement to use the staircase of and in the Building are not without qualifications. The qualifications are:-

(1) "for all purposes connected with the proper use and enjoyment of the floor (the Applicants unit) in the said Building of which the (the Applicants) is entitled to the EXCLUSIVE use occupation and enjoyment" and

(2) for the purpose of ingress to and egress from such floor (the Applicants' unit)."

The Respondent has not breached the said Clause 2 on the iron gate on the flight of the stops above the land, leading to the main door of the Applicants' unit is not inconsistence with access thereto. "

4.1.公契第2有以下的條文：－

"Each of the parties hereto and his licensees shall in common with his co-owners of the said Land and their licensees have access to and be entitled to use the staircase, landings and the common passages of and in the said Building and all pavements surrounding the said Building insofar as such rights are now subsisting for all purposes connected with the proper use and enjoyment of the floor in the said Building of which he is entitled to the exclusive use occupation and enjoyment and for the purpose of ingress to and egress from such floor."

4.2.公契第2條明文規定大廈的業主或有權與其他業主共同使用大廈的梯間。由於答辯人在梯間裝置的鐵閘佔用樓梯空間的一部份，別的業主便永遠不能使用這一部份。當鐵閘的門被關閉後，其他業主便不能使用由該鐵閘至2字樓門口的樓梯部份。這是有違第2條和建築物管理條例第34I(1)(a)條的規定，因此這項理由不能成立。申請人所提及關於修理、緊急情況及通往天台之事並不能改變答辯人違反公契第2條以及條例第34I(1)(a)的事實。

5.答辯人指稱 "It is not in dispute that the Respondent did ask for the Applicants consent for the installation of iron gate during a telephone conversation between the parties on 21st May 2002. It is the Respondent's evidence that the 1st Applicant did raise no objection to her request and further suggested that a sliding gate would be better, while on the other hand the 1st Applicant denied so at the trial." 因此，在最壞的情況下，申請人理應賠償答辯人因安裝和移去鐵閘和扶手的費用。"

5.1.答辯人並無在修訂的反對通知書內提及2002年5月21日的日期。在她的証人陳述書（証物R1）答辯人說：

“其後於二零零二年五月廿一日，本人發現梯間的牆上有一篇文字及很多劃線，從文字內容中得知是Peter在二零零一年五月廿日寫的，當天曾有警方人員到場調解。 ...........................，本人曾向他提議雙方合資更換位於梯間入口（地下位置）已因失修殘破的鐵閘，但遭他拒絕 ..........

5.2.答辯人的証人陳子群在証人陳述書（証物R6）說：

“....... 於二零零二年五月廿一日，有警察來為盧志豪和黃詠儀調解梯間的事；"

5.3.她的另一個証人李嘉慧在証人陳述書（証物R7）亦有相同的陳述：

“....... 於二零零二年五月廿一日，有警察來為盧志豪和黃詠儀調解梯間的事；"

5.4.上述的陳述書根本上並無提及答辯人所指發生於2002年5月21日之事。這項理由所指的事不是事實，因此這項理由不能成立。

6.答辯人提出12項因素反對審裁處頒佈禁制令，她說 "A mandatory injunction will cause undue hardship to the Respondent compared to the minimal, if not none, inconvenience to the Applicant." 本案沒有關於"undue hardship"的証據。如果不頒佈禁制令，申請人面對的不單是“不便”，而是可能比“不便”更為嚴峻的後果。就鐵閘而言，當它被關上，由該處至2樓的梯間便完全為答辯人佔用。在正常情況下，樓梯是業主利用作為到達他的處所之用，但在緊急情況下，例如火警，多一點空間便多一點逃生的機會，將梯間封閉便是將這機會除去。根據Approval letter的第4段的規定，任何違反18項條件的行為可導致政府收回有關的地段，這會直接影響申請人在該土地的權益，而天台小屋和窗口的建造已違反了其中兩項規定。

6.1.就第9至第10項因素而言，本案完全沒有關於該兩項的証據。

6.2.答辯人所述的12點理由不是拒絕禁制令的理由。

6.3.基於上述的理由，本席撤銷答辯人的覆核申請。

7．訟費

就本覆核申請，本席命令答辯人支付兩名申請人訟費。如雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由法庭按高等法院訟費水平為基準而予以評定。

第一及第二申請人：由林健文林新賢律師行代表。

答辯人：由M/S Chan, Wong & Lam 律師行代表。