|
LDMR000043/2000
LDMR 43/2000
香港特別行政區
土地審裁處
申請編號LDMR 2000年第43宗
|
Tse On, Manager of Tse Mau San Tso |
申請人 |
|
|
|
|
訴 |
|
|
|
|
|
Secretary for Transport |
答辯人 |
主審法官：周兆熊法官
判案日期：2001年4月17日
______________
判 案 書
______________
1. 2000年8月22日，申請人向土地審裁處（“審裁處”）提出申請，要求審裁處頒令答辯人作出收地補償。該申請是以申請人於 1999年9月22日向答辯人送達的書面申索作為依據，補償金額為$370,323.00。
2. 2001年1月9日，答辯人向審裁處提出申請，以申請人濫用法庭程序為理由，要求審裁處將申請人的申請撤銷。
背景
3. 對下列的事實，與訟雙方皆無爭議：
| 1.11.1967 |
Assignment of R. P. of Lot No. 60 in D. D. 214 ("the property") in favour of the Applicant. |
|
|
| 18.8.1998 |
The Applicant assigned the property to Tse Tin Kau, the son of the manager of the Tso, Tse On. |
|
|
| 15.10.1998 |
Notice of resumption published in Gazette. |
|
|
| 9.12.1998 |
Government offered compensation (in the sum of $370,323.00) to the Applicant. |
|
|
| 31.12.1998 |
Tse On made a declaration that he bought the property in his own name with his own money, that he did not buy the property in the capacity as the "Manager of Tse Mau San Tso" and that based on this understanding he assigned the Property to his son. |
|
|
| 2.1.1999 |
Tse Tin-kau accepted the offer of compensation. |
|
|
| 15.1.1999 |
Date of resumption. |
|
|
| 12.3.1999 |
The Applicant and Tse Tin-kau executed the Deed of Cancellation in relation to the Assignment in favour of Tse Tin-kau. The Deed was not registered in the Land Registry. Neither was it disclosed to the Respondent.
Tse On and Tse Tin-kau through their solicitors informed the Government that Tse On is prepared to surrender the property in his own name.
|
|
|
| 14.9.1999 |
Government informed the Applicant that the Assignment between Tse On and Tse Tin-kau was invalid because it was made without prior consent of the District Officer nor was the signature of the Manager attested to by the District Officer/Secretary for Home Affairs under s. 15 of the New Territories Ordinance, Cap. 97. |
|
|
| 20.9.1999 |
The Applicant admitted that the Assignment should therefore be ignored. |
|
|
| 22.9.1999 |
Tse On made a claim to the Respondent pursuant to s. 29 of Roads (Work, Use and Compensation) Ordinance, Cap. 370. |
|
|
| 9.10.1999 |
Government informed the Applicant that compensation could not be released due to objections from members of Tso. |
|
|
| 12.11.1999 |
Government requested clarification on the capacity of Tse On, made offer of compensation again to Tse On in his capacity of the manager of the Tso and reiterated that compensation could not be released until the objections from members of Tso were resolved. |
|
|
| 15.11.1999 |
Tse On in his capacity of the manager of the Tso accepted the offer of compensation. |
|
|
| 26.11.1999 |
Government reiterated that compensation could not be released until the objections from members of Tso were resolved. |
|
|
| 3.12.1999 |
Meeting between Tse On, Tse Tin-kau and two members of the Tso, in which Tse On claimed that the property should be his own property but had been registered in the name of Tso by mistake. The two members disagreed. |
|
|
| 20.4.2000 |
The Applicant's solicitors said that any dispute and objections to Mr. Tse On's receipt of compensation should be resolved by the Court of First Instance. |
4. 1999年9月22日，申請人向答辯人送達有關第214約 第60 R. P. 地段的書面申索。申索書部份的內容是如下列 ：
"(f) Particulars of the claim :
(i) The amount of the claim HK$370,323.00.
(ii) The claim is made under item 1 (The resumption of land under S.13) of Part II of the Schedule.
(iii) How the amount is calculated: offered by the District Lands Office, Sai Kung, Lands Department by a letter dated 23rd January, 1999 (copy enclosed for your reference)."
5. 1999年11月12日，地政總署再向申請人送達日期為1999年 1月23日的函件，再次提出該要約。該信件有關本案的內容如下 ：
"I am now directed to offer you compensation of $370,323.00 in full and final settlement of all claims, costs and demands including interest and professional fees which you may have against the Hong Kong Government arising out of or in connection with the resumption of the said land under the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 370)."
6. 1999年11月15日，代表申請人的顧張文菊律師行函告答辯 人，申請人接受答辯人有關收地賠償的要約。該信的主要內容如 下 ：
"................ we enclose herewith an Acceptance Letter dated 15th November 1999 signed by our client Tse On in the capacity of the Manager of Tse Mao San Tso as requested by you(r) letter of 12th November 1999 for your processing."
7. 上述的 "Acceptance Letter" 有以下的主要內容 ：
"I/We accept the offer of compensation made in the attached letter in full and final settlement and discharge of all claims including interest and professional fees which I/We have in the land formerly known as Lot(s) 60 R. P. in D. D. 214 under and in accordance with the provisions of the Road (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 370)."
8. 1999年11月15日，申請人接受上述的補償要約，因此於該 日，申請人與地政總署已就申請人1999年9月22日的書面申索達成和解協議；在他的接受函件，申請人清楚表示補償要約的接受對申索構成完全並最終解決的和解協議，因此，從1999年11月15日起，申請人對答辯人就第214約第60 R. P. 地段收地賠償已再無申索的權利。他祇能向答辯人追討在和解協議下答辯人須向申請人發放的金額$370,323.00。
審裁處之司法管轄權
9. 代表申請人的莊大律師指審裁處對此案具有司法管轄權，他引用道路（工程、使用及補償）條例的第29(7)條以支持他的論據，該條的內容如下 ：
"（7）如在運輸局局長收到申索滿7個月後，該宗申索仍未透過協議獲得解決，則申索人或運輸局長可在審裁處展開法律程序，由土地審裁處根據本條例對該宗申索或該宗申索仍在爭議中的部份進行聆訊和作出裁 定。”
10. 莊大律師指答辯人仍未支付該$370,323.00，故此申請人的申索仍未透過協議獲得解決，所以審裁處有權審理此案。
11. 如上述，申請人在1999年9月22日的申索已通過1999年 11月15日的協議獲得解決。和解協議所達成的款額$370,323.00是基於協議而產生的，故此向答辯人追討此筆款項並不屬於道路（工程、使用及補償）條例所指“申索”範疇。自1999年 11月15日起，申索人在達成和解協議後就第214約第60 R. P. 地段收地賠償已再無申索的權利，故此申索人無權在2000年8月22日向審裁處提出基於1999年9月22日申索的補償申請。
12. 就$370,323.00“追討”的事宜，莊大律師指依據《土地審裁處條例》第8(9)條賦予的權力，審裁處有權處理該條規定。第8(9)條有以下的規定 ：
“在行使其司法管轄權時，審裁處在授予衡平法或普通法的補救及濟助方面所具有的司法管轄權，與原訟庭所具有者相同。”
（原文無劃線）
13. 《土地審裁處條例》第8(1)條是適用於本案的條例，該條規定：
“審裁處具有司法管轄權，可就根據附表內指明的任何條例而呈交審裁處的任何申索，釐定政府所須支付的補償金額（如有的話）。”
14. 道路（工程、使用及補償）條例是列載於附表內條例之一。申請人1999年9月22日的申索已於同年的11月15日通過協議解決，故此審裁處並無申索的事宜可審，既然審裁處無需就第214約第60 R. P. 地段收地的補償事宜行使其司法權，前述的第8(9)條自然是不適用於本案。
15. 2000年10月30日，答辯人知會申請人審裁處並不是解決與訟雙方之事的適合的法庭 ：
"Without prejudice to the foregoing, we take the view that the Lands Tribunal is not the proper venue for determining the outstanding issues between the parties (and non-parties) because from the past correspondence there seems to be no dispute as to the amount of compensation and the issues are the dispute as to the ownership of the subject lot at the date of resumption and that there are objections made by members of the Tso as to the release of compensation. Your client should therefore withdraw this action forthwith."
16. 2000年11月1日，顧張文菊律師行函告答辯人，申請人不同意答辯人的說法，但本席裁定申請人的申請並無任何成功的機會。申請人根本不應於審裁處提出訴訟；即使他已提出申請，但亦應在答辯人提醒後撤銷其申請，可是他並沒有這樣做。他的申請構成濫用法庭的程 序，因此本席將申請人的申請撤銷。
訟費
17. 本席頒下後列臨時訟費的命令：申請人須支付答辯人本案的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭評定。
18. 如與訟任何一方不在14天內提出反對，則該命令作實。
申請人：由顧張文菊律師行代表。
答辯人：由律政司代表。
|