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

LDBM000244B/2000

LDBM 244/2000

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2000年第244號

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣判日期：2001年10月30日

______________

判 決 書

______________

1．2001年9月12日，本席對訟案作出裁決，並頒佈以下的臨時訟費的命令 ：

“申請人須支付所有答辯人本案的訟費（包括聘請大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額以高等法院的訟費水平為基準由法庭評定。如在14天內與訟雙方不向本席提出申請，則此訟費的命令作實。”

2.有關訟費的判給、評定及追討，《土地審裁處條例》第12(1)條有以下的規定 ：

“12. 訟費

(1) 除本條例中給予審裁處司法管轄權處理任何事宜的條文另有規定外，審裁處可將訟費判給法律程序的任何一方或判法律程序的任何一方須支付訟費，並可下令該等訟費須以《區域法院民事訴訟程序（訟費）規則》 （第336章，附屬法例）附表1及《高等法院規則》（第4章，附屬法例）第62號命令的附表所列多個訟費表中任何一個為基準而予以評定。”

3．申請人反對上述的命令，它要求與訟雙方各自負責本身的訟 費。代表申請人的卜大律師在他的書面陳詞說 ：

"4. In paragraphs 1 to 5 of the judgment, Your Honour ruled that the Tribunal does not have any jurisdiction on individual committee members (2nd Respondent to 10th Respondents) but on Management Committee only.

6. The Applicant, suing against wrong parties in the instant case, is neither frivolous nor vexatious. The Respondents were and are represented throughout. Their legal representation might advise to striking out Applicant's application at early day."

4.申請人並非是以無理的方式進行訴訟，但它既然是無權對第二至第十答辯人提出起訴，它便必須負起敗訴的責任；答辯人有權自行決定抗辯的方式，申請人無權對此置啄。

5．申請人在書面陳詞中又說 ：

"6. Reasons and Findings in the Judgment : -

(a) In paragraph 9, Your Honour has ruled that the accounting matter ruled by the High Court Judge in HCA 11384/1999.

(b) In paragraph 10.2, Your Honour has ruled that there was breach(es) by the individual member(s) of the Management Committee.

(c) In paragraph 11.2, Your Honour has heard the evidence that the Management Committee put up tenders after receipt of the application under sections 20A and 44 of the Building Management Ordinance.

(d) In paragraph 12.1, Your Honour has ruled that the matter was not light but not sufficient for the dissolution of the Management Committee.

(e) In paragraph 13, Your Honour has ruled that the Applicant adduced evidence of free parking by the 2nd Respondent but without intervention by the Management Committee.

(f) In paragraph 14, Your Honour has ruled various obstructions in the Building.

7. I respectfully submit that the Applicant took out the application with reasonable grounds though those grounds could not satisfy Your Honour during the hearing ......."

6．有關上文述及的裁決，本席是假設第二屆管理委員會為答辯人而作出的。申請人提出解散管理委員會的要求是建基於4個理由。申請人並無合理的基礎提出第1至第3個理由；就第4個理由而言，除有關管理委員會在沒有制止第二答辯人於大廈的公用地方免費泊車一事 外，其餘的指控都不能成立。

7．申請人即使是以管理委員會作為訴訟的對象，它並無成功的機會；況且它根本是無權針對個別管理委員會的委員提出訴訟，故此它提出這訴訟是不合理的。

8．申請人要求訟費的評定應以區域法院的訟費水平作為基準而予以評定，但本案涉及複雜的法例和事實，故此訟費以高等法院的訟費水平為基礎而予以評定是恰當的。

9．基於上述的理由，本席拒絕申請人的申請，並將臨時訟費的命令變為永久的命令。

10．申請人須支付答辯人聆訊是次申請的訟費。

申請人：由朱錦全律師事務所代表。

第一至第十答辯人：由何譚律師事務所代表。