Tam Tai on 訴 the Incorporated Owners of Allway Gardens

LDBM000072/2001

LDBM72/2001

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2001年LDBM第72宗

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

判案日期: 2001年3月12日

______________

判 案 書

______________

1. 根據申請通知書內所載，申請人是新界荃灣荃威花園N座3004室的業主，而答辯人則是按《建築物管理條例》註冊的業主立案法團。

2. 2001年2月8日，申請人向土地審裁處（"審裁處"）提出下列的申 請：

"1. The Applicant applies for an order relating to the interpretation of Paragraph 2(1) of the Third Schedule to the Building Management Ordinance and seeks the following Declarations and Order:

(a) A Declaration that the Annual General Meeting of the Respondent held on the 16th day of January 2001 was void and of no effect;

(b) A Declaration that all the resolutions purported to have passed during the aforesaid Meeting were also void and of no effect;

(c) An Order that a new Annual General Meeting of the Respondent to be held as soon as it is practicable.

2. The question of law, interpretation and enforcement or other issue to be determined is:

(a) Whether the Notice for the said Annual General Meeting, convened under Paragraph 1(1)(b) of the Third Schedule to the Building Management Ordinance ("the said Ordinance"), served on each of the owners of the Building on the 2nd day of January 2001 has duly complied with Paragraph 2(1) of the said Third Schedule, in that,

(i) it has purportedly been issued in pursuance of Section 5 of the said Ordinance, when in fact it should have been issued under Paragraph 1(1)(b) of the Third Schedule of the said Ordinance;

(ii) It has purportedly been issued by the Chairperson of the management committee of the said Owners' Corporation, when in fact it should have been "served by the secretary of the management committee" under Paragraph 2(1) of the Third Schedule;

(iii) it has purportedly been served on each owner of the Building "at least 14 days before the date of the meeting", when in fact it has failed to take into account of Section 71(a) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, Cap. 1, Laws of Hong Kong, in the computation of time, which Section having deemed to exclude "the day on which the event happens or the act or thing is done".

Particulars of the Notice of Meeting and the Annual General Meeting:

1. Date of Notice of the Meeting: 2nd January 2001;

2. Date of service of the said Notice: 2nd January 2001;

3. Date of the Annual General Meeting: 16th January 2001.

(b) If the answer to the first question is in the negative, namely, the said Notice was indeed void and of no effect, whether the subsequent Annual General Meeting held thereunder on the 16th day of January 2001 and all the resolutions purported to have passed therein were thereby rendered void and of no effect;

(c) If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, whether the new Annual General Meeting should be held by the former management committee; and if not, by whom?"

3. 2001年2月13日，申請人提出本傳票的申請；他要求審裁處按《土地審裁處規則》第18條對列載於本傳票的“初步法律論點”作出裁 決；該“初步法律論點”與申請書內第2段的內容是完全相同的。

4. 2001年3月5日，本席聆訊此傳票的申請。

5. 上述第18(1) 條有以下的規定：

“庭長或一名法官可應任何一方的申請，下令庭長或一名法官有司法管轄權決定而看似在有關法律程序中有爭論的任何法律論點，須在庭長或一名法官席前進行的初步聆訊中處理。”

（原文無劃線）

6. 在申請人提出傳票之日，本庭衹有申請通知書所列載的“事實”。直至聆訊之時，答辯人仍未向審裁處存檔反對通知書，故此本席並不知道答辯人對於前述的“事實”是否會承認或否認 。申請人所依據的有關“初步法律論點”的“事實”衹不過是他單方面所指稱的事實。在答辯人把反對通知書存檔之前，本席不能夠將該些“事實”作為本案的事實而對傳票作出裁 決。如果答辯人對申請通知書內的事實有重大的爭議，上述第18條便不適用。申請人既然未能顯示與訟雙方同意的事實，本席便無從知道他們是否在法律論點方面會有所爭議。

7. 在聆訊此傳票的時候，答辯人的代表要求呈交反對通知書，但本席拒絕他的申請。本席所需聆訊和作出裁決的，是申請人的申請，而不是答辯人的申請。他須在適當的時候才可提出正式的申請。

8. 申請人並未符合上述第18條的規定，故此本席撤銷本傳票的申請。

訟費

9. 申請人須支付答辯人本傳票的訟費。

申請人：無律師代表，親自出庭。

答辯人：缺席。