秦富強 訴 啟勝管理服務有限公司

LDBM000272A/2000

LDBM 272 OF 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272號

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣判日期：2002年1月3日

_________________

覆 核 判 決 書

_________________

1．2001年10月15日，申請人提出以下的申請 ：

"1. The Respondent be ordered to make and file the affidavit/affirmation stating whether any/any class of documents specified or described in the attached letter dated 3/8/2001 and 10/8/2001, [referred to as exhibit "A", "B"] has any time been, in his possession, custody or power, and, if not then in his possession, custody or power, when he parted with it and what has become of it.

2. The scheduled hearing be adjourned."

2．10月18日，本席聆聽該申請，並於10月20日頒下判決書。10月22日，申請人要求覆核上述的判決。本席將案件押後至翌日，以便答辯人準備有關覆核申請的誓章。10月23日，本席再次將案件押後至10月24日，以便申請人作出回應誓章。10月24、26、30、31日以及12月3日，本席審理覆核的申請。

3．本案的背景

2000年8月25日，申請人提出本案的申請。2001年1月5日、3月14、15日以及6月26、27、28、29日，本席對此案進行審 訊。7月5日，本庭接獲法律援助署的備忘錄，從而得知申請人向該署申請法律援助。8月8日，本席將案件訂於2001年10月22、23、24及26日繼續審訊。10月15日，申請人提出本傳票申請。

4．因為本席所需考慮之其中一個重要因素，就是傳票申請提述的文件是否與本案有關，故此本席需將申請人在本案申請的內容如下列 出 ：

"1. to judge and declare the memorandum of outstanding operation charge by management office is not a fair/just action and deleted from the Land Registry.

2. to declare/make mandatory injunction/appropriate order that the aims/action of management office (residential) are for the interest of house owners of New Town Plaza Phase 3, but not for its parent company Sun Hung Kai Estate Co. Ltd.

3. to judge whether the raise of management fee from January, 2000 is a fair/just action.

4. to confirm specified actions of management office is illegal and inappropriate and take remedial actions by management office

a) illegal erection of management office site

b) inappropriate use of public facilities not in interest of house owners

c) illegal blockage of passages"

5．申請人的覆核申請，是以10月22日的誓章作為基礎，而輔之以10月24日的誓章，但傳票申請，卻是以10月15日的誓章為根據，而申請人所要求的，全是証物A與証物B的文件，故此本席必須以此兩份証物所指明的文件作為裁決的依據。

6．証物A所提述的文件

在証物 A（即3.8.2001的信）中，申請人指出他要求檢視的文 件 ：

"I would like to inspect all the accounts books of the estate mentioned in your letter dated 15/06/2001 ........"

6.12001年6月15日，答辯人曾致函予申請人。本席列出該信與本案有關的部份 ：

'In relation to your incessant requests for "certified true account books", please be informed again that other the auditors' accounts which are certified as true by an independent third party, we do not have any document in the name of "certified true account books" and as such cannot provide you for inspection a photocopy of the same.

We would very much like to assist in allowing you to inspect or make photocopies of any other available accounts in our possession, such as income and expenditure accounts, balance sheets, auditors' accounts and ledgers.................'

7．証物B提述的文件 : certified true accounts books & receipts/vouchers/bills

在証物B（即10.8.2001的信）中，申請人提出他要求(a)、(c)、(d) 3類文件。就(a)類的文件，他說 ：

"Here I explain my relevant & related requests one by one:

a) The request of

i) certified true accounts books & receipts/vouchers/bills;

ii) clarify & confirm how much fixed and non-fixed assets;

iii) the bank accounts titles and balances at each financial years

of the domestic & development common areas/facilities of the New Town Plaza Phase 3;

..............................

The accounts books & records with receipts/ vouchers/bills contained vital informations for the Application LDBM 272/2000. For instances, there would be specific informations on the expenses on the electricity & water, on the guards expenses, etc."

（原文無底線）

7.1在10月22日的誓章，申請人再次列出他所要求的文件 ：

"1. The yearly set of accounts books for the New Town Plaza Phase 3 estate, from 1993 - 2000, with its supporting bills/vouchers/receipts/bank account statement/other documents referred to in those books and records of accounts.

a)	i. The Respondent had given the applicant the yearly auditor reports of such yearly set of accounts books.
	ii. The Respondent had admitted in his letter dated 15/06/2001 that he possess account books, including income and expenditure accounts, balance sheets, legers and auditor's report, and had admitted in his letter dated 20/6/2001 that he had at least the latest 6 years of books and records of account............."

7.2在這誓章中，申請人要求的並不是“certified true accounts books and receipts/vouchers/bills”，而是“yearly set of accounts books from 1993 - 2000, with its supporting bills/vouchers/receipts/bank account statement/other documents referred to in those books and records of accounts”。這與申請人在証物B所要求的並不相同。此外，在証物A與証物B，申請人並無提述他需要檢視的是屬於那一時期或年份的文 件。

7.3答辯人在15.6.2001的信中清楚指出它並無 “certified true account books”的文件。申請人沒有提出任何証據以証明答辯人有該些文件。

7.4証物A與証物B並無提及答辯人於20.6.2001所寫的信。據申請人所說，該信是在20.6.2001寫的，故此倒數6年是由1995至 2001年，但申請人要的文件則是由1993至2000年的文件，但答辯人並無指出它有屬於1993至1994年的文件。

7.5在10月22日的誓章中，申請人指出為何他需要名為“the yearly account books”的文件的原因 ：

"b) i. The yearly account books revealed information concerning whether the Respondent had keep a true and proper account of the estate. This related to the 2) of S2 of the application.

ii. The yearly account books and its supporting bills/vouchers revealed information concerning how electricity in the estate is calculated or consumed monthly. This related to 2) & 4) of S2 the application.

iii. The yearly account books and its supporting bills/vouchers e.g. 1999 and 1998 revealed information concerning how the money had been spend in that years, and form the basis for determining whether the budget of the next year is reasonable. The section concerning the salaries of staffs in 1999 may help to showed how many guards had been employed in the period. This related to 3) of S2 of the application."

7.5.1(b) i的理由

就答辯人是否有保存屋邨真實和正確的賬目，申請人在申請通知書並無提出任何指控，故(b)(i)的理由是與本案無關。

7.5.2(b) ii 的理由

新城巿廣場第3期的屋邨分為住宅部份（共5幢樓宇），以及屬於商業用途的部份。樓宇單位的數目很多。申請人要求1993 - 2000年（共8年）的文件，文件的數目會是非常龐大，但有關電力使用量的文件只會佔其中一小部份。這即是說許多其他的文件是與電力使用量並無關係。在Molnlycke AB v. Procter & Gamble Ltd. (No. 3) [1990] R.P.C. 498一案中，法庭指出 ：

"Where a claim to see a class is made, the class must not be defined or described so widely as to include documents which are not relevant to the issue."

該裁決是適用於此項申請，故此本席不應批準申請人的申請。

7.5.2.1在申請通知書的第2項，申請人指稱答辯人犯下“dishonesty on non-CLP electricity meters/inaccurate billing”的錯誤。申請人說 ：

"Varies estate managers had lied about the methods of calculating electricity billing. All along they have insisted the billing was using the CLP meters and according with the consumption data of the meters. When I was the chairman, I found that the billing was by unknown calculating formula when I checked the electricity bills. Hence I had conducted a checking of meters (totaling 15) and confirmed discrepancy and dishonesty of the manager. The incidence was delegated to the next owners committee when my term of chairman expires. The Owner committee ....... and the manager subsequently told me that they have set up another meter by CLP and then the electricity billing was exactly calculated by meter readings......

When I became the block representative again, I checked the incidence again as I found the electricity bill was still by formula calculation. Just, before October/2000 Owners Committee meeting ....... I was told that the electricity billing was by CLP meter readings again. ......."

7.5.2.2本席難以想像yearly account books and its supporting bills/vouchers會顯示有關屋邨電力賬單的計算方法。電力賬單祇會顯示用電量，以及用戶該付的電費，它不會顯示屋邨的經理人對electricity billing的計算方法。

7.5.2.3申請人指答辯人“不誠實”的原因是他們對electricity billing計算的方法說謊，故此審訊重點是關於electricity bill的計算方法，即是答辯人是否以CLP meters作為計算電力的依據，抑或是以unknown calculating formula計算。就這方面的裁定，本席需有人作証才能知道該計算方法。本席不能祇以文件（電力賬單）的資料就可作出裁決。

7.5.2.4在申請通知書的第4(b)(ii)項，申請人指答辯人 ：

"use residential public electricity for commercial part of the development without the approval of the owners. The managers use different versions of explanation to justify their use but they had never verified their explanation."

7.5.2.5對此項指控，答辯人在反對通知書提出下列的抗辯 ：

"(i) the owner of the Commercial Development of New Town Plaza Phase III had during the period from about 1992 to 1995 borrowed electricity for its Christmas lighting from the residential common areas;

(ii) such borrowing of electricity was acknowledge by the then Owner's Committee;

(iii) electricity expenses for the Christmas decoration had always been accounted for by the Commercial Development."

上述的答辯理由清楚顯示出審訊的重點在於答辯的理由是否成立。申 請人所需要的文件完全與這部份的審訊無關。

7.5.3(b)(iii)的理由

申請人指(b)(iii)的理由是與申請通知書第3項申請有關。在該項申請的細節內，申請人祇作出以下的陳述 ：

"(4) practically no measure that can control the increase of the management fee by management office at the present running of Owners' committee."

7.5.3.1第3項申請是關於由2000年1月起所調高的管理費是否合 理。公契Section V Subsection (D) Clause (I)有下列的規定 ：

"For the purpose of fixing contributions towards the Management Expenses payable by the Owners of the Development, the Manager shall prepare an annual budget showing the estimated net expenditure on management of the Development and the Owners' contributions shall be based on this budget. Annual budgets (except the first) shall be prepared in consultation with the Owners' Committee."

7.5.3.2申請人的第3項申請祇是關於由2000年1月起管理費（由 1,433元加至1,494元，增幅為3.5%）的增加是否公平的裁決。申請人所指“form the basis for determining whether the budget of the next year is reasonable"必定是1999的yearly account books and its supporting bills/vouchers，故此1993至1998和2000年的yearly account books and supporting bills/vouchers對此項裁決是沒有關係的文件。

7.5.3.3按下述的理由，本席亦不應批准申請人的申請。

7.5.3.4答辯人於1999年11月8日展示及送達予業主2000年管理費預算草案，預算案顯示管理費會有5%的調升。申請人致函答辯人，反對通知書內有關為個別住宅單位購買保險的建議。1999年12月1日，答辯人發出通告，知會各業主購買保險之事會被暫緩實施，而管理費的預算亦將會因此由5%減為3.5%。

7.5.3.5管理費的總額的釐定，在《建築物管理條例》附表7第1段第(1)和第(2)節有詳細的規定 ：

“1. 管理開支總額的釐定

(1) 除第(3)、(5)、(6)及(8)節另有規定外，在任何一段由經理人就建築物的管理而定為財務年度的12個月期 間，業主應付的管理開支總額，須為經理人按照第(2)節指明的該年度的建議開支總額。

(2) 經理人須就每個財務年度而

(a) 擬備列明該財務年度的建議開支的預算草 案；

(b) 將預算草案副本一份送交業主委員會，如無業主委員會，則將該副本展示於建築物內的顯眼處；

(c) 隨同預算草案副本送交或展示（視屬何情況而定）一份通知，邀請每名業主在由預算草案送交或首次展示日期起的14天期間內，將業主對預算草案的意見送交經理人；

(d) 在該期間結束後，擬備指明該財務年度的建 議開支總額的預算；

(e) 將預算副本一份送交業主委員會，如無業主 委員會，則將該副本展示於建築物內的顯眼 處。”

（原文無底線）

7.5.3.6答辯人如果有遵守第(2)節的規定，則申請人須按預算草案所建議而繳交管理費，故此答辯人是否有遵照第(2)節的程序辦事才是議決之點，祇要答辯人遵守附表7第(2)節的規定，它的決定就對所有業主具有約束力。附表7並無提及任何有關預算案是否合理的問題，故此翻查以往歷年的賬目不會對裁決有任何幫助。

8.証物B提述的文件 ：(c) The request of the Development Rules of the domestic & development common parts & facilities

就這方面的要求，申請人引述公契第48頁所述的條文 ；

"A copy of the Rules from time to time in force shall be kept with the management office and a copy of the relevant part or parts of the Rules shall be supplied to each Owner on request free of charge."

8.1這是公契Section V Clause (B)(2)的部份條文。該條的起首部份是“The Manager shall have power from time to time to make, revoke or amend ...... the Rules”但申請人不能証實答辯人事實上是管有有關Development Rules的文件。

8.2申請人指這是與4(b)(iii)的申請有關；(b)項是“inappropriate use of public facilities”，而第(iii)節是 ：

"residents had to double pay for the recreation facilities because all expenses including maintenance had been paid by management fee."

8.3假設答辯人事實上是管有該些文件，本席亦看不出該些development rules與第(iii)節有何關係。在証物B，申請人祇說，“The Development Rules will be helpful for the subsequent Hearing.”他並沒有說該些Development Rules對訴訟的裁決有甚麼幫助。

9.証物B提述的文件 ：(d) The request of (i) the letter dated February 9 1993 from the Shatin District Land Office.

申請人在22.10.2001的誓章並無提及9.2.1993的信。就這封 信，申請人在証物B說:

"The demand of the letter dated 9/2/1993 from the District Land Office help to decide whether the wide concept or small concept is appropriate to the passages (footbridges connecting New Town Plaza Phase 3 & Hilton Plaza) and to determine to what extent the illegal structures has to be removed in order to comply with the government requirement. Also the Buildings Ordinance Cap. 123 paragraph 24 specified that the letter from the government should be ultimately addressed to the owners if the illegal structures is already built. Hence the owner(s) has a right to know what order in writing has been issued by the government."

9.1在10月24日的誓章內，申請人說，“The letter dated 8/5/1993,which was drafted by the Respondent and was signed by the applicant or chairman, showed the existence of the document.”，但申請人並無將8/5/1993的信件展示，故此本席不知道它的內容。即使根據申請人所說，這信件只顯示該信件的存在，但它不能証實答辯人管有該信 件。

9.2申請人沒有指稱答辯人管有9.2.1993的信件，故此本席不能命令答辯人對此信件作出有關管有此信件的誓章。

10.証物B提述的文件 ：(d) The request of (ii) the building plan of the podium (level 4 of the New Town Plaza Phase 3).

在22.10.2001的誓章，申請人沒有提述“the building plan of the podium (level 4 of the New Town Plaza)”。在“The Building Plans of the Development”的題綱下，他說，“a) The Applicant had inspected the building plan of the development before in the management office. b) This related to the illegal structures and illegal blockage in 4) of S2 of the application & inappropriate use of public facilities e.g. loading bay in 4) b)”。

10.1根據公契的釋義部份“the Development”是指 ：

"The whole of the commercial and residential development on, under or above the Land in accordance with the Approved Plans including 5 Domestic Blocks, 1 Podium with the Car Parks, Swimming Pool, Tennis Court, Podium Roof, and all other structures, erections and constructions whatsoever forming part of such development and intended to be known as New Town Plaza III.

10.2上述釋義顯示，Building Plans of the Development涵蓋整個屋邨的Building Plans，而申請人在24.10.2001存檔的誓章清楚顯示他所要求的是該些圖則，因為在該誓章他說 ：

' ............... the applicant dispute that

a. the request for the Development Building Plans is a fishing expeditions and

b. the Respondent does not know what the Development Building Plans, which can show illegal structures of the podium/illegal blockage of passages/inappropriate use of common areas, which the applicant had specified.

i) According to 2.1 of the OC meeting record on 28/4/1993, the Respondent had confirmed to the OC that he has the Development Building Plan for the common areas available for inspection.

ii) The approved Development Building Plans had been seen by the applicant in the management office when the manager, Mr. Terence Kwong had used it to explain to the applicant the plan submitted for approval to convert the changing rooms to Sona rooms. Actually, I have copied part of the Development Building Plans concerning the Sona rooms in that incidence.

iii) The manager, Mr. Terence Kwong, had given the applicant the copy from part of the Development Building Plans to explain the plan to set up the new management office in the podium. The copy is attached as exhibit "A".'

（原文無底線）

10.3以上的誓章內容清楚顯示出申請人所指的Development Building Plans（亦即他所需檢視的）涵蓋屋邨的不同部份，即如common areas、Sona rooms、new management office，但在証物B，申請人所要求的祇是“the building plan of the podium (level 4 of the New Town Plaza)”，而並非“Building Plans of the Development”。前者是局限於podium，因為申請人指明這是New Town Plaza level 4的podium，而level 4的podium祇是整個Development的一部份而已；此外，前者是一張圖則（building plan），但後者是眾多圖則（Building Plans），故此“Building Plans of the Development”並非申請人的所求，因此在誓章有關“Building Plans of the Development”的指稱、事實或論據，例如loading bay的非正當使用，皆與本傳票申請無關。對上述的文件界定為不同的文件是重要的，因為podium是在level 4，而loading bay是在地下，故此即使the building plan of the podium被呈堂作為証物，它與地下的loading bay 的被非正當使用無可能有任何關連。

10.4申請人在22.10及24.10的誓章中重覆的說他親眼目覩答辯人管有“The Building Plans of the Development”，但他並無提出任何指稱或証據指証答辯人管有“the building plan of the podium (level 4 of the New Town Plaza)”，本席不能下令它須將它交予申請人檢視。

10.5假使“the building plan of the podium”與“The Building Plans of the Podium”是同樣的圖則，基於以下的理由，本席亦會拒絕申請人的申請。

10.6在第4項申請人指管理處的辦公處是非法的建築物，而答辯人拒絕將其合法化。對此點，答辯人在反對通知書提出以下的抗辯理 由 ：

"38 (a) .......................

(v) The fact that the management office has been used without having obtained from the Building Authority proper approval for its building works has all along been acknowledged and accepted by the Owners' Committee.

(vi) The Respondent has now obtained the consent of the Owners' Committee to submit, and in fact has submitted, building plans in respect of the management to the Building Authority for approval.

(vii) The Owners' Committee had on 16th January 2001 resolved that before any decision is made by the Building Authority, the Respondent shall continue to operate at the management office for the benefit and convenience of all owners of New Town Plaza Phase III."

10.7答辯人已承認管理處的辦公室為非法的建築物，本席裁定本案不需要Building Plans of the Development作為証物。

10.8在申請通知書的第4(b)(i)項，申請人指答辯人錯誤使用loading bay。他說 ：

"illegal use of loading bay by parent company for selling of flats to potential buyers and driving away the driving residents waiting for their relatives. This action contradicted with the approval plan for the specified use of the loading bay. This contradict with DMC page 46 subsection (w) of the duty of manager."

10.9申請人沒有指出“approval plan for the specified use of the loading bay”與“Building Plans”是否為同一物。公契釋義部份祇有 “Approved Plans”一詞。那是指“The general building plans and specifications for the development of the Land approved by the Building Authority under B.O.O. Reference No. BLD(B) 2/9049/83 as the same may be amended from time to time with the approval of the Director of Buildings and Lands.”。公契釋部份並無“approval plan for the specified use of the loading bay”一詞。公契亦無“Building Plans of the Development”一詞。這詞所指的Building Plans並無提及是否已由建築署所批准。“approval plan”是單數，而“Building Plans”是眾數，故此“approval plan for the specified use of the loading bay”與“Building Plans of the Development”不會是同樣的事物，因此後者與第4(b)(i)項 並無關係。

10.10即使二者是有關連，本席基於以下的理由裁定答辯人無需出示後者。對於第4(b)(i)項的指稱，答辯人在反對通知書並無提出任何答 辯。本席不知道原因為何，但根據一般的民事規則，如果辯方對某一指控不提出答辯，則他會被視為默認該指控。既然如此，則答辯人無需出示“Building Plans of the Development”給予申請人檢視。

10.11在第4(c)項，申請人指答辯人“illegally had blocked of the passages at level 4 (2 opposite Hilton Plaza and/opposite Royal Park Hotel) not according with the law and legally approval plan.”

10.12對此項指控，答辯人在反對通知書有以下的答辯 ：

"(i) it was the Applicant and the first Owners' Committee of New Town Plaza Phase III who instructed the Respondent to send letter to the District Land Office to oppose the District Land Office's for removal of blockage to the passageways at Level 4;

(ii) the Applicant is therefore himself liable for the blockage of the passageways at Level 4."

10.13既然答辯人已承認第4層的走廊通道被封閉的事實，本席看不出任何理由需要答辯人出示Building Plans of the Development的需要。

11.有關載有電力使用量的文件

在10月22日的誓章，申請人要求答辯人出示 ：

"the documents showing the electricity consumption that had actually been borrowed by the commercial part of New Town Plaza Phase 3 for Christmas/New Year Decoration during the past years."

11.1他說 ：

"a) The Respondent witness Ip Wing Nin's statement S20 (ii) & the Owners' Committee minutes dated 13/4/94 had shown that the Respondent had the document showing electricity expenses for the Christmas and New Year's decorations had already been accounted for by the Commercial Development.

b) This is related to 4) b) ii) of the application."

11.2就有關電力耗用方面，申請人在証物B有這樣的要求 ：

"b) The request of

i) written approval of the manager of New Town Plaza Phase 3 for access to the data & documents held by China Light & Power and Water Authority;

ii) electricity consumption data of the residential common facilities;

iii) the electricity consumption that had been borrowed by the commercial part of the New Town Plaza Phase 3 for Christmas/New Year Decoration during the past years;

iv) the inspection of the CLP meter1020474;

v) the details of electricity power source inside the entrance of footbridge 143."

（原文無底線）

11.3申請人在証物B的另一部份說 ：

"........... Since the CLP company had said that I had to ask approval of the registered owner of the CLP meters of domestic common facilities of New Town Plaza Phase 3, i.e. Fidelity Guarantee Limited, before I can access the data and documents ......... Hence the reason of refusing the owner(s) access to the data and documents in CLP because of the reason that the owner(s) is/are not the electricity technician/personnel is not justified.

Differents versions concerning the electricity consumption data or meters had been given from the same or different managers of your company."

（原文無底線）

上述的誓章第(b)(ii)與(iii)項的內容清楚顯示申請人所要求的是有關用電量的data而不是documents，第(i)項顯示“data”是有別於 “documents”，因為他要求的是“data and documents”，而不是“data or documents”。在他心目中“data”、“documents”必定是兩種事 物，所以他才用“&”(and) 一字將兩種事物連貫起來。無可置疑，如果他要的是有關electricity的“documents”他必會將這要求以 “documents”表達出來，一如他在第(i)項之下和証物B的另一部份所表達的一樣。誓章另一部份最後的一句所提述的“data”非常之清晰顯示出“data”是指資料，如果這字在句子中被“document”取代，整個句子便沒有意義。

11.4申請人在22.10.2001的誓章表明他要求“the documents showing the electricity consumption”。這不是申請人在証物B所載的原先的要 求。

11.5申請人指這些文件是與4) b) ii)項的申請有關，而基於答辯人對此項顯示它承認屋邨的商業部份是曾經借用住宅部份的電力，申請人 指該借用是沒有得到住宅的業主同意，但答辯人則指業主委員會對此 加以承認，而該些借用的電力已由商業部份作出承擔。這部份審訊的重 點在於答辯人的抗辯理由是否能夠成立故此，即使有關電力耗用的文 件被呈堂，本席看不出呈遞該些文件作為証物對此項審訊爭議之點有任何幫助。

12.基於前述的理由，本席撤銷申請人的覆核申請。

申請人 ：親自應訊。（無律師代表）

答辯人 ：由胡關李羅律師行代表。