The Incorporated Owners of Sun Lee & Hung Lee Building 訴 Chak Wang Yung and Others

LDBM000352/2003

LDBM 352/2003

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2003年第352號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

聆訊日期: 2003年12月17日及22日

宣判日期: 2004年1月30日

_______________

判 決 書

_______________

1.2003年12月4日，申請人提出本案的申請。於同日，它亦提出本傳票申請，要求土地審裁處頒佈以下的命令：－

"	1.	An interlocutory injunction order to restrain the Respondents whether by themselves or their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from interfering with, impeding, obstructing and/or preventing the Applicant via the 13th Management Committee or its agents or servants from the carrying out and/or discharge of its duties including but not limited to:-
		(i)	serving and/or displaying notices to the owners at the prominent places of Sun Lee Building & Hung Lee Building ("the Building");
		(ii)	collecting management fees from the owners of the Building; and
		(iii)	operating the account No.015-239-40-0003-6 of the Applicant with the Bank of East Asia Limited, Shaukeiwan Branch including but not limited to withdrawing money therefrom to meet the usual expenses of the Applicant.
		until after the trial of this Application or until further order.
	2.	An order that the 13th Management Committee be at liberty to activate and operate the account No.015-239-40-0003-6 of the Applicant with the Bank of East Asia Limited, Shaukeiwan Branch including but not limited to:-
		(i)	depositing the collected management fees into the account; and
		(ii)	withdrawing money from the account to meet the usual expenses of the Applicant
		until after the trial of this Application or until further order.
	3.	An interlocutory injunction order that the Respondents do forthwith deliver to the Applicant via the 13th Management Committee or its agents or servants all the books and records of account and other financial records in respect of the Building."

2.2003年12月8日，答辯人提出傳票申請，要求審裁處頒佈以下的命令：－

"	1.	...............
	2.	An interlocutory injunction order to restrain the Applicant whether by itself or its servants or agents or otherwise howsoever from interfering with, impeding, obstructing and/or preventing the 1st to 13th Respondents i.e. 12th Management Committee or its agents or servants from the carrying out and/or discharge of its duties including but not limited to:-
		(i)	serving and/or displaying notices to the owners at the prominent places or Sun Lee Building & Hung Lee Building ("the Building");
		(ii)	collecting management fees from the owners of the Building; and
		(iii)	operating the account No.015-239-40-0003-6 of the Applicant with the Bank of East Asia Limited, Shaukeiwan Branch including but not limited to withdrawing money therefrom to meet the usual expenses of the Applicant.
		until after the trial of this Application or until further order.
	3.	An order that the 1st to 13th Respondents i.e. 12th Management Committee be at liberty to activate and operate the account No.015-239-40-0003-6 of the Applicant with the Bank of East Asia Limited, Shaukeiwan Branch including but not limited to:-
		(i)	depositing the collected management fees into the account; and
		(ii)	withdrawing money from the account to meet the usual expenses of the Applicant.
		until after the trial of this Application or until further order."

3.2003年12月17日，本席批准答辯人取消針對申請人的傳票第一項申請；12月22日，本席批准申請人取消針對第9、第10及第13答辯人的申請。

背景

4.2003年10月25日，第一答辯人以新利及鴻利大廈業主立案法團第12屆管理委員會主席的身份發出召開業主大會會議通告，通知業主於2003年11月10日晚上8時正在筲箕灣街103號舉行業主大會,其議程為：

1) 主席報告

2) 商討應否及通過解散業主立案法團委員會

3) 選舉新一層業主立案法團管理委員會委員

4) 選舉主席，秘書，財政

5) 其它事項

5.2003年11月10日晚上，第一答辯人與其他答辯人（管理委員會的委員）在8時前扺達現場，當時已有業主在場，等候開會。其後，因為某些原故，第一答辯人與其他答辯人約於晚上9時離開場址。他們離去後，一位名叫Li Hin Man的人士被在場的業主委任為主席，以主持"業主大會"，Li Hin Man 並不是法團內的一位業主；其後“該業主大會”通過解散第12屆管理委員，以及委任第13屆管理委員會的決議。

6.就上述兩個傳票申請，本庭需要考慮的問題是：Li Hin Man主持的業主大會所通過的決議是否有效的決議？這涉及一個根本的問題：該“業主大會”是否《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）所指的業主大會。代表申請人的 Lee Shu wun大律師指出 "The appointment of Mr. Li to chair the meeting was not a fatal irregularity which would vitiate the validity of the Resolution." 他引用Kwan & Pun Co. Ltd. V Chan Lai Yee & others [2002] 4 HKC 639一案的判決以支持其說。在該案，上訴庭在第647頁作出以下的判決：

"Problem with the chairman

32. Finally, in regard to the contention of the role of Mr Leung, again in my view, this is not a matter of substance. Paragraph 12 of the Eighth Schedule of the Ordinance states that 'A meeting of the owners shall be presided over by the chairman of the owners' committee or, in his absence, by an owner appointed by the owners as chairman for that meeting. At the meeting, one Mr Fung was appointed as the chairman of the meeting. However, Mr Leung who was a District Councillor took over the conduct of the meeting. He did so without the slightest objection by either the appointed chairman or those present at the meeting. The principle stated in Carruth must be applicable. For all practical purpose, the meeting must have agreed to Mr Leung acting as the chairman. I cannot see how it can be said that there was a material irregularity which would vitiate the validity of the resolutions."

7.在Chan Lai Yee一案，上訴庭清楚列出它關注的共有4個問題，其中之一是："(iv) the effect of Mr. Leung taking over the conduct of the meeting when he was not the appointed Chairman of the meeting." 該問題並非是關於由不具業主身份的人士主持“業主大會”所引致產生的法律上的問題。上訴庭並無指出Mr. Leung並不是業主，這是與本案不同之處。

8.《建築物管理條例》附表3內有關主持大會主席之人的身份有明確的規定。第1及3段有以下的規定：－

"	1.	(1)	.....................
		(2)	在不少於5%的業主要求下，管理委員會主席須在收到要求後14天內，就業主所指明的事宜召開法團的業主大會。
	2.	.....................
	3.	(1)	根據附表2第2(1)(b)或5(2)(b)段（視屬何情況而定）委任的管理委員會主席，須主持法團的會議。
		(2)	如管理委員會主席缺席，根據附表2第2(1)(c)或5(2)(ba)段（視屬何情況而定）委任的管理委員會副主席（如有的話）須主持法團的會議，如副主席亦缺席，則出席會議的業主須委任一名業主作為該次會議的主席。
		(3)	除第10(1)條所規定者外，在出席人數達到法定人數的法團會會議上提出的一切事項，均由業主投票表決，以多數票決定。
		(4)	如贊成和反對雙方的票數相同，則主持會議者除原有的共通票一票外，另外決定性的一票。"

9.上述的條文清楚規定主持法團大會的人依次為管理委員會主席、副主席（如有的話）及由出席會議業主委任的業主，Chan Fai Yee一案的判詞並無對由不具業主身份之人被委任為會議主席主持會議所產生的問題作出裁決，因此本席對申請人的陳述，指稱該案的判決對其案情有幫助之說存疑。本案關鍵之點在於由不具業主身份的人主持的會議是否是附表3所提述的法團的會議。

10.Mr. Li的委任表面上是違反了條例附表3第3(2)段的規定，代表申請人的大律師亦承認這是一個 "irregularity"祇不過是它不是 "a fatal irregularity"而已。一如所指，Chan Fai Yee 一案的判決似乎難以對申請人有所幫助。既然申請人表面上已違反了有關的條例，它的行為便似乎是非法的行為，因此本席不應對它在傳票提出的申請予以批准。

11.基於上述理由，本席撤銷申請人的傳票申請。本席因此判令答辯人的第2及第3項申請得直，但本席將這兩項內所述的 "the 1st to 13 Respondents"名詞更改為 "the 1st to 8th, 11th to 12th Respondents"。

訟費

12.有關這兩張傳票的訟費（包括聘用大律師的費用）歸於本案的訟費。

申請人：由Pansy Leung, Tang & Chua, Solicitors 代表

第1至第8，第11至第12答辯人：由Tai, Mak & Partners, Solicitors 代表