Jikan Development Limited 訴 the Incorporated Owners of Million Fortune Industrial Centre and Others

LDBM000244/2000

LDBM 244/2000

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

申請編號LDBM 2000年第244宗

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣案日期：2001年4月2日

______________

判 案 書

______________

1. 2000年12月7日，本席批准申請人修訂申請通知書，而本案的聆訊亦在同日進行。申請人的証供完結後，第二答辯人開始作証，其後案件押後至2001年3月9日再審。

2. 2001年2月28日，申請人提出申請，要求土地審裁處批准它再次修訂申請通知書。2001年3月9日，本席批准它的申請，但本席需要裁決訟費的爭議，因為答辯人要求申請人立刻支付訟費，而申請人祗同意在案件審結後才支付訟費。答辯人的理據是載於它的書面陳辭 內 ：

"6. The evidence that the Applicant's sought to adduce was not something hiding in the dark or beyond seas. It was obtained by interviewing one Mr. Law Wai Bok ("Mr. Law"), a staff member of the manager of the property in question and Mr. Law was available at the material times. The Applicant has never explained why it did not interview Mr. Law earlier. If the Applicant opined that the issue is relevant to the hearing, the Applicant should have made effort long time ago and in any event before the hearing in last November to adduce this evidence. There is no explanation why the issue had not been promptly and fully investigated at the last hearing. The only logical reason that a reasonable bystander could draw is the Applicant did not manage its case diligently.

7. ...... No tribunal would encourage proceedings marred by disorganization or delay. ......

8. ........................

9. In deciding what order to make about costs the court is required to have regard to all circumstances including the conduct of all parties. The conduct of the parties includes whether it is reasonable for a party to raise a particular issue at a given stage of proceedings and the manner in which a party has pursued his case or particular allegation or issue. In Drown v Gaumont-British Picture Corporation Ltd. [1937] 2 All ER 609, it was held that the court may penalize a litigant whose application for interlocutory relief is marred by disorganization or delay. The order of costs "to be paid forthwith" carries a punitive element which signifies the misconduct of a party whom the order is made against."

3. 對申請通知書的再修訂，申請人在它的書面陳辭有下列的解 釋 ：

"2.1 On 14th February 2001, the Applicant unexpectedly obtained a piece of evidence from Mr. Law Wai Bok, a staff member of Manager of the 1st Respondent ("Mr. Law"). The conversation last three hours between Mr. Law and Lam Pun Leung, Jason, the Applicant's Financial Controller ("Mr. Lam") was tape recorded."

（原文無劃線）

上述錄音記錄的要點是有關第二答辯人不恰當行為的指控（載於再修訂申請通知書第1(e)段之內），該些指控有助申請人加強申請通知書內原有指控的份量，因此本席不相信申請人無故將此等指控故意隱 瞞，直至2001年2月28日才向審裁處提出申請，將此等指控加入申請通知書之內；這對申請人並無好處。本席信納申請人的解釋，它祗是在本年2月14日才意外從Mr. LAW處得到上述的資料，繼而在2月28日提出再修訂的申請。

4. 本席頒下後列的訟費命令 ：

5. 申請人須支付答辯人因修訂申請通知書所引致的一切訟費，包括在2001年3月9日因不能繼續本案的聆訊而浪費的訟費（包括答辯人在2001人3月9日聘用大律師的費用），但申請人可在案件完結時才付予答辯人上述的訟費。

6. 如與訟雙方未能議定此訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭審定。

申請人：由M/S Johnny Chu & Co., Solicitors代表。

第一至第十答辯人：由M/S Ho & Tam, Solicitors代表。