Charter Favour Ltd 訴 the Incorporated Owners of Million Fortune Industrial Centre and Another

LDBM000089/2003

LDBM 89/2003

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2003年第89號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

聆訊日期: 2003年10月30日

宣判日期: 2003年12月23日

_______________

判 決 書

_______________

1.2003年8月19日，第一答辯人提出下述的傳票申請：

"1. The Applicant do within 7 days from the date of the order to be made give security for the 1st Respondent's cost to the satisfaction of the Judge on the ground that there is reason to believe that the Applicant, being a limited company, will be unable to pay the costs of the 1st Respondent if successful in its Opposition, and that in the meantime all further proceedings be stayed;

2. If the Applicant fails to pay the security within the time specified in the order to be made herein, the Applicant's claim against the 1st Respondent be dismissed;

3. The costs of this summons be the 1st Respondent's cost and paid forthwith."

2.第一答辯人提出本傳票的其中一個法律根據是《公司條例》第357條。該條文有以下的規定：

“凡一間有限公司在任何訴訟或其他法律程序中為原告人，任何在有關事宜上具有司法管權的法官，如依據可信證供而覺得有理由相信在被告人勝訴時，該公司將無力支付被告人的訟費，則該法官可規定該公司須就該等訟費予充份保證，並可擱置所有法律程序，直至該公司給予該項保證為止。”

申請人的財政狀況

3.2003年8月19日，代表第一答辯人的 Ho Pak Ming 律師作出了一份支持本傳票申請的誓章，該誓章的第5至第9段反映申請人的經濟狀況：

"5. The Applicant is a limited company incorporated in Hong Kong. By a company search conducted against the Applicant company, it is revealed that the paid up is only HK$2.00 issued capital .................

6. Ms. Chan Suk Fun, a clerk of my firm, acting on my instructions visited the registered office of the Applicant at Room 801, 8th Floor, China Merchants Steam Navigator Building, 152-155 Connaught Road Central, Hong Kong on 20th June 2003 at about 5:00 p.m.. Ms. Chan found that the premises were an office of an accountant's firm, namely Francis S.L. Yan & Co., Certified Public Accountants. Ms. Chan has also made further enquiries with the Hong Kong Telecom and checked the latest Hong Kong Telephone/Fax Directory, the name of the Applicant is not listed in the telephone/fax lists.

7. Although the Applicant owns the common parts, it does not have exclusive possession of the same. Moreover, the common parts are want of maintenance and repairs and therefore it is in fact worthless.

8. According to the Applicant, the consideration for the purchase of the external wall is HK$100,000. As in the case of the common parts, the external walls are want of maintenance and repair and the owner will have to bear the costs thereof............... .

9. The Applicant has engaged Midland Surveyors Limited to produce a valuation report on the market value of the common parts and external walls of the Building. The surveyor is of the view that the open market value of the same are insignificant or even nominal..............."

4.申請人並無提出任何証據，反駁第一答辯人的指控。代表申請人的大律師告知本席申請人沒有現金可用；它正期待它的前任者 Jikan Development Limited ("Jikan")在 FACV Nos. 2&3 of 2003針對第一答辯人的上訴案會獲得勝訴，因為Jikan會給它經濟上的支援，但在2003年11月6日，終審法院撤銷Jikan以及另一上訴人的上訴。這即是說，本案的申請人不會得到Jikan的經濟支援以進行本案的訴訟。

申請人針對第一答辯人的申請是否有勝訴的機會？

5.申請人共提出下述針對兩名答辯人的申索：

"1.	At all material times A is the legal owner of 16 equal undivided 17,180th parts or shares of and in Section C of Tsun Wan Island Lot No.34 and in the Building by virtue of an Assignment (hereinafter called "the Assignment") from Jikan Development Limited (hereinafter called "Jikan") dated 22nd February 2001 and registered in the Land Office ........................... and by virtue of that A is an owner within the meaning of the Deed of Mutual Covenant of the Building (hereinafter called "the DMC") and Cap.344, and is entitled to enforce the rights of an owner therein under the common law and Cap. 344 respectively and all rights attached by law to this ownership.
2.	By virtue of the Assignment A acquired from Jikan the right to claim damages and mesne profits for unauthorized occupation of the Lift Lobbies at each floor of the Building since Jikan became the owner of the Common Parts, which form the subject matter of the aforesaid 16 equal undivided 17,180th parts in para.1 hereinabove.
3.	R2-KM is and has since 25th February 1989 been the owner of Workshop Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the 1st Floor of the Building.
4.	R2-KM has erected two concrete partitions with iron doors enclaving certain parts of the lift lobby at the aforesaid 1st Floor, .............................. for the purpose of excluding access by other people.
5.	(a) R2-KM has also installed iron grilles at the fire exits leading to the staircases of the aforesaid 1st Floor, ............................ for the purpose of excluding access by other people.
	(b) R2-KM has also installed concrete walls covering the entrance to public toilets of the aforesaid 1st floor, which walls are marked on the sketch attached herein with green lines for the purpose of excluding access by other people.
	(c) Despite protest and written request, R2-KM has failed to take substantial response to deal with the request for demolition and to make good the situation in full.
6.	By reason of the aforesaid conduct, R2-KM has breached section 9B of the Fire Services Ordinance, and exposed users of the Building to fire hazards and also breached provisions of the DMC.
7.	Under section 16 and 18 of Cap.344, R1 is under a duty to ensure the Common Parts of the Building are properly managed and no authorized structures or iron grilles shall be installed as pleaded hereinabove.
8.	By a letter dated 25th March 2003, R1, via its solicitors, admitted its duty to enforce the provisions of the DMC by way of litigation in case of breach of these provisions by an owner. R1 had also asked some of the owners of the Building to demolish certain illegal structures.
9.	By a letter dated 16th April 2003 from A's solicitors to R1's solicitors, A invited R1 to join as co-plaintiff at A's costs. R1 chose to ignore the aforesaid invitation.
10.	By virtue of the aforesaid conducts R1 and R2-KM has committed unlawful acts (which include here "omissions") vis a vis A.”

6.申請人針對第一答辯人的申請是以《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）第16及第18條作為依據的，該兩條條文有以下的規定：

“16.	業主權利等由法團行使等
	建築物業主根據第8條成立為法團後，業主所具有的與建築物公用部分有關的權利、權力、特權、職責，須由法團而非業主行使及執行；而業主所負有的與建築物公用部分有關的法律責任，除本條例條文另有規定外，亦須針對法團而非針對業主執行；...............
	(a) ....................
	(b) ....................
17.	.............................
18.	法團的職責及權力
	(1) 法團須－
	(a) 使公用部分和法團財產維持良好合用的狀況，並保持清潔；
	(b) 在公職人員或公共機構行使任何條例所賦權力,命令或要求就公用部分進行某項工作時，遵照辦理；
	(c) 採取一切合理必需的措施，以執行公契（如有的話）載明有關建築物的控制、管理、行政事宜的責任。
	(2) ............................."

7.假如申索書中的 "Common Parts"是條例所指的公用部分，則就針對第一答辯人的申請，審裁處須要考慮的是第一答辯人是否已作出了符合條例第18(1)(c)規定的措施。根據申請人與第一答辯人的來往書信，申請人指明第一答辯人須依順從它的決定以對第二答辯人的"非法建築物”採取行動。2003年3月18日代表申請人的律師行致函第一答辯人，提出以下的通知：

"Take Notice that legal action will be commenced by our client against you after the lapse of 7 days from the date of this letter, in connection with the two walls (illegally erected) ...... portions of the lobby of 1st Floor (which are common parts) and the iron grilles locking fire exits leading from the lift lobby to the staircases, unless you give our client a written undertaking that:

1. ....................

2. ....................."

8.2003年3月25日，代表第一答辯人的律師行(“該律師行”)致函申請人，指出並無証據有關“非法建築物”會對建築物的佔用人或訪客構成即時危險，它會要求1字樓的業主就有關電梯大堂的使用方法是否符合法律要求尋求法律意見。2003年4月11日，該律師行再致函申請人，信中說 "..................there is no compelling reason to and urgency to spend owners' money to commence legal proceedings against the owner of the 1st Floor for the alleged illegal structure/installations in your client's time frame .............."。它指出它在4項訴訟中正使用許多款項。它說 " ...............it is unreasonable to expect our client to take legal action against every one who is alleged to have breached the provisions of the Deed of Mutual Covenant at the request of one co-owner. We trust that the management committee of our client has the power and duties to up the owners' money in such priority they reasonably deem fit .......... In any event, we are given to understand that after receipt a copy of our letter to you dated 25th March 2003, the owner of the 1st Floor is taking steps to investigate if there is any breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant and Building Regulations. Reasonable time must be given to him for doing so. Therefore there is no urgent need to spend owners' money to take legal proceedings against him".

9.2003年4月16日，該律師行再次致函申請人，告知後者以下事情：

"..........we are instructed that the owner of the 1st Floor has commenced works to reinstate the lift lobby and the fire exits. Accordingly there is absolutely no need for your client to take legal action in respect of this matter."

10.2003年5月7日，申請人提起本案的申請。第一答辯人所採取有關大廈管理的惜施，必須是合理的，在進行訴訟之前，它必須窮盡所有合理的方法，才採取法律行動，因為任何爭議可能不需通過訴訟便可解 決，以便省回訴訟的費用。申請人針對第一答辯人的要求是否合理成疑。如果第一答辯人的作為符合第18(1)(c)條的規定，申請人針對它的申請便會失敗。

11.本席對申請人針對第一答辯人的申請成功的機會存疑，因此本席裁定傳票內的第一項申請成立，但本席無權頒佈第二項申請的權力。

本席頒令：

1． 申請人須於21天內向法庭支付300,000元作為支付第一答辯人訟費的保證金。本席擱置所有法律程序，直至申請人交付該筆保証金為止。

2． 本席撤銷第二項申請。

3． 申請人須支付第一答辯人本傳票申請的訟費（包括聘用大律師的費用）。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水平為基準而予以評定。

申請人：由Messrs. B.C. Chow & Co., Solicitors 代表

第一答辯人：Messrs. Ho & Tam, Solicitors 代表