|
LDMR000006/2000
LDMR 6/2000
香港特別行政區土地審裁處
申請編號LDMR 2000年第6宗
|
Poon Kui Wai trading as Wai Yuen Hing |
申請人 |
|
|
|
|
訴 |
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary For Transport |
答辯人 |
主審法官: 周兆熊法官
宣判日期: 2000年10月13日
______________
判 決 書
______________
1. 申請人於2000年9月21日提出傳票，要求法庭頒佈以下的命令：
"1. The Applicant's Application against the Respondent be withdrawn on condition that:
a. The Respondent be ordered to pay to the Applicant interest on the sum of HK$279,300.00, paid by the Respondent to the Applicant in full and final settlement, from the date of resumption under section 17(3) and 17(3A) of the Land Resumption Ordinance Cap. 124 at a rate to be determined by the Lands Tribunal if not agreed;
b. The Respondent be ordered to pay to the Applicant the amount of any costs or remuneration payable under section 10(2)(e)(ii) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance Cap 124 which amount is to be assessed by the Lands Tribunal if not agreed;"
（b）款內所提述的 "costs or remuneration" 是指申索人聘用任何人以專業身份辦理與申索有關的事宜，因而合理招致或支付的費用或酬金（"聘用專業人士的費用/酬金"）
背景
2. 2000年2月21日，申請人通過他的律師行向土地審裁處（"審裁處"）提出申請，要求它就香港特別行政區政府根據鐵路條例而收回新界元朗錦田丈量約第109約份第351、352、353（部份）及355（部份）土地的賠償作出裁决。2000年3月13日，答辯人向審裁處存檔反對通知書。直至2000年9月21日，與訟雙方未有就上述訴訟在審裁處提出進一步的法律程序。
3. 2000年6月3日， 答辯人致函申請人，提議支付後者$279,300的金額，作為本案部份申索的和解金額。信中的主要有關部份後列如下：
"I refer to your agent's letter dated 11.4.2000 and previous correspondence claiming business disturbance compensation in the sum of HK$1,140,000. I regret to inform you that having carefully considered the details provided, I cannot agree to your assessment. However, subject to you being able to prove that you are entitled to compensation as the occupier of the above land under the provisions of the said Ordinance, I am directed to offer you compensation in the sum of $279,300 ........., being the disturbance payments for the loss and damage to the business conducted on the land in full and final settlement of all and any claims, costs and demands, except claims for interest on compensation and reimbursement of professional fees, which you may have against the Government, its officers and agents under the Ordinance or otherwise arising out of or in connection with the resumption of you former estate or interest in the land."
（劃線為原文所無）
4. 2000年6月30日，申請人回函予答辯人，表示接受上述的提議：
“I accept the offer of compensation in the sum of HK$279,300 and agree to all the terms as stated in the offer letter from you dated 23 JUN 2000. in full and final settlement and discharge of all claims, costs and demands which I and anybody claiming through, under or in trust for me and anybody deriving from me title and interest in the land described above may have against the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, its officers and agents in respect of the land formerly known as Lot Nos. 351,352,353 (Portion) and 355 (Portion) in DD 109 under and in accordance with the provisions of the Railways Ordinance (Cap. 519) save for the right to claim interest and professional fees."
（劃線為原文所無）
5. 上述的函件清楚顯示申請人與答辯人於2000年6月30日達成有關本案部份申索的和解協議。
6. 申請人的律師亦承認此一事實。本傳票的申請，是按李國勇律師的誓章作為事實的根據；在該誓章的第4段，李律師說：
"Before the Application was heard by the Tribunal, the Applicant accepted an offer of compensation in the sum of HK$279,300.00 in full and final settlement of his claim, except claims for interest on compensation and reimbursement of professional fees."
（劃線為原文所無）
7. 其後與訟雙方就申請人在撤回本案申請一事上未能達成協議，於是申請人提出本傳票的申請。
法律程序的“撤回”
8. 有關撤回法律程序的條文，是列載於土地審裁處規則第27條；該條的有以下的規定：
"（１） 任何一方，藉向另一方送達表示將法律程序中止或將部份法律程序撤回的通知書，即可無須審裁處許可而將法律程序中止或將部份法律程序撤回。"
9. 申請人並未有利用第27條的規定以撤回其索償的申請。如申請人要撤回本案的申請，他祇需按土地審裁處規則第27條的規定去做便可，而無須事先獲得審裁處的許可。
10. 申請人會否撤回其申請是他本人的决定，本席無權下令他撤回他的申請。
11. 撤回法律程序的作為是基於與訟任何一方本身的决定和單方面所採取的行動，故此就它的本質而言，是不應亦不可附有任何條件的。
12. 申請人撤回本案法律程序的申請是帶有兩項條件的"撤回"申請，這亦即是說，如果任何的條件之一不能被滿足，本席便不應命令申請人撤回其申請。
13. 就本申請而言，申請人撤回法律程序的條件是要答辯人支付$279,300.00的利息以及聘用專業人士的費用/酬金。就此兩項條件，與訟雙方並未達成協議，亦未有任何裁决或其他事實使本席可以頒令答辯人須支付兩條件內所提述的費用。就後者而言，李國勇的誓章清楚顯示出專業人士的費用的責任問題並未解决，李律師在誓章的第11及12段有以下的陳述：
"11. During a telephone conversation between Mr Chisum Ho of the Department of Justice and me in the afternoon at about 3:15 p.m. on 12 September 2000, Mr Ho insisted on us providing them with an estimate of the professional fees and legal costs. He said that he could not agree to pay the professional fees and legal costs without knowing in advance an estimated amount, otherwise the Applicant would ask HK$80,000.00 or even HK$100,000.00 for legal costs. I replied that if the Applicant was entitled to the said amount, the Respondent would have to pay. Further, I said that it would not be unreasonable and in order to save costs that the Respondent should agree to pay the Applicant his professional fees and legal costs. However, despite repeated requests by me over the phone, Mr Ho refused to admit that the Respondent was liable to pay professional fees and legal costs to the Applicant.
12. I am of the view that unless the issue of liability in respect of professional fees and legal costs are resolved, there is no point to quantify the amount of professional fees and legal costs. ...................."
(劃線為原文所無)
14. 聘用專業人士的費用/酬金的責任問題既然並未解决，申請人便無任何根據可以要求本席下令答辯人須支付該項費用。
15. 假若本席批准申請人的申請，那便等於在未經審訊和缺乏有關協意之下便裁定申請人在兩項條件內所提述的要求得直，但本席並沒有任何法律或事實的根據可以批准該些申請。
16. 基於上述的理由，本席撤銷本傳票的申請。
17. 本席頒下臨時的訟費命令：申請人須支付本傳票的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的金額，則該訟費的金額由訟費評定官評定。如與訟雙方不在14天內提出有關此臨時命令的申請，則此臨時命令變為永久的命令。
申請人：由侯劉李楊律師行代表
答辯人：由律政司代表
|