Cartex International Ltd. 訴 a a Property Services Ltd.

LDBM000042/2002

LDBM 40 TO 42 AND 44 TO 48 OF 2002
(合併案件)

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第40號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第41號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第42號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第44號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第45號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第46號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第47號

_____________________________

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第48號

_____________________________

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣判日期：2002年7月19日

______________

判 案 書

______________

1.在這宗合併案，與訟雙方同意以下列的事實作為本案的案情:-

'1. All the Applicants are registered owners of the premises or units of the building known as FFT22 on No.22 Fung Fai Terrace ("the Building").

2. In relation to the Building, there is a Deed of Mutual Covenants made on 9th March 1992 (Memorial No. 523 8623) (..........) governing the respective rights, interests and obligations of the individual owners of the Building as well as setting out the powers and duties of manager appointed to manage the Building.

3. The Respondent or one AA Property Management Ltd. is the former manager of the Building and its appointment was terminated with effect from 1st April 1999 by the Incorporated Owners of the Building, which was formed on 1st March 1999.

4. On 30th January 2001, the Respondent caused to be registered 11 Memorandum of Charges (all dated 25th July 2000) by the respective Memorial Nos. (.........) against the respective premises owned by the Applicants. The Respondent registered the Memorandum of Charges purportedly pursuant to the powers of manager set out in the DMC (in particular, Clause H-8(e) thereof).'

2．在此宗合併案，每一位申請人的申請，是要求土地審裁處 （“審裁處”）頒佈以下的命令:-

"(a) a declaration that the Respondent has unlawfully registered the said Memorandum of Charge against the said premises;

(b) an order that the Respondent do remove/vacate the said Memorandum of Charge from the Lands Registry;

(c) the damages to be assessed;

(d) the costs of this application be borne by the Respondent."

3．本案是涉及與公契條款的釋義及執行有關的法律程序的案件，故此審裁處對本案具有司法管轄權。

4．本案關鍵之點在於答辯人被終止經理人的委任後是否有權針對申請人的土地權益在土地註冊處作出押記的註冊。在每一份押記備忘錄 （Memorandum of Charge），答辯人自稱是FFT22大廈的經理人，而它是以這身份作出押記的。有關的部份有這樣的述明:-

"A A Property Services Limited (hereinafter called "the Manager") is the Manager of the Development known as FFT22, No. 22 Fung Fai Terrace, Hong Kong ................"

在押記備忘錄內，答辯人提述FFT22的大廈公契（“公契”）第H-3 (e)、H-8(a)、H-8(e)及H-8(f)條，並以該些條文作為註冊押記的基礎。它是依據公契第H-8(e)條作出押記的註冊的；該條有以下的條文:-

"In the event of any Owner failing to pay any sum due and payable by him in accordance with the provisions of this Deed within 30 days of the date on which the same became payable, the amount thereof together with interest as aforesaid and the said collection charge and all costs and expenses which may be incurred in recovering on attempting to recover the same including the legal expenses to be incurred and in registering the charge hereinafter referred to, shall be charged on the share or shares of the defaulting Owner in the Land and the Building and the Manager shall be entitled without prejudice to any other remedy hereunder to register a Memorial of such charge in the Land Office against the share or shares of the defaulting Owner.........."

（原文無底線）

5．公契第H-8(e)條祇授權“the Manager”對欠交該條所指的款項的業主的土地權益作出註押。誰是“the Manager”？公契第B-11條對這詞作出詮釋：“the Manager" means the Assignor or any service or management company appointed by the Assignor or any service company or management company from time to time appointed by the Owners under the powers herein contained。但H-8(e)條祇是局限於經理人被委任之事，它沒有提述任何關於“ex-manager”或 "former manager"（前任經理 人）之處，故此本席需要考慮公契其他的條文，以決定“the Manager”一詞是否包括“the ex-manager”或“the former manager”在內。公契第F-1條是與此有關的條文。該條是有關經理人委任的有效期:-

"The management of the Land and the Building shall be undertaken by such management company as appointed by the Assignor for a term of one (1) year from the date of issue of the Occupation Permit of the Building and until such appointment is made, the Assignor shall act as the Manager. The Manager so appointed shall continue to be the Manager of the Land and the Building for the said term of one (1) year and thereafter the appointment shall subsist until a two months' written notice of termination shall have been served on the Manager by the Owners' Committee upon a majority resolution of the Owners being passed hereinafter provided in Section G hereof. Likewise the Manager may thereafter determine its appointment on giving two months' written notice in that behalf to the Owners' Committee of its intention Provided that no notice shall be given by either party until the expiry of the said term of one (1) year."

（原文無底線）

第F-1條清楚顯示當經理人被委任後，該委任會持續直至被終止為 止。經理人的委任可根據F-1條予以終止。當該委任被終止時，經理人便在委任終止之時失去經理人的地位。

6.就B-11條的釋義而言，“the Manager”一詞是否包括“the ex-manager”或“the former manager”在內？經理人的職責就是管理大廈。它的職權是詳列於F-3條下的31項之內。當經理人辭職或被終止職務，大廈的法團會另聘經理人；如法團不再聘請經理人，法團的管理委員會會執行經理人的職責。如果B-11條的“the Manager”一詞是包括前任經理人在內，則大廈的管理會變得非常混亂，因為當現任的經理人或法團的管理人在執行經理人的職務時，前任的經理人仍有權執行 大廈的管理工作。這決不會是公契草擬者在草擬公契時的意圖，這亦會使F-1條的條文變為毫無意義。本席裁定，公契B-11條所指的“the Manager”是指委任仍然生效的經理人,而不是指前任經理人。

7．在F-1條底下有關辭退經理人及經理人辭職的規則已由《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）附表7的第6段及第7段所取代，因為條例 第34E條有以下的規定:-

“(1) 除第(4)款另有規定外，附表7的條文-

(a) 須隱含地納入在關鍵日期或該日之後訂立的每一公契內；及

(b) 自關鍵日期起，須隱含地納入在該日期之前訂立的每一公契內。

(2) 憑藉本條納入公契內的條文-

(a) 對建築物的業主及其經理人均具約朿力；及

(b) 與公契的任何其他條文不一致時，即以憑藉本條納入公契的條文為準。”

8．條例附表7第8段是有關經理人的委任結束後的責任:-

“經理人的委任不論因何原因結束，均須在其委任於結束日期的2個月內-

(a) ……………

(b) 將在其控制下或其保管或管有下的與建築物的控制，管理及行政事宜有關的任何帳簿、帳項紀錄、文據、文件及其他紀錄，送交管理委員會（如有的話）或接任其位的經理人。”

在行使其經理人的職權時，它需要保存上述的文件；在經理人的委任終止後，它須將上述的文件交出，因為他不再是經理人。

9．公契第H-8(e)條的條文祇能由大廈的經理人行使。2001年1月30日，當答辯人向土地註冊處提出將申請人的土地權益作出押記的申請時，它是以公契第H-8(e)條作為根據的，但當時答辯人不是FFT22的經理人，所以它無權行使該條文，因此本案涉及的11項的有關土地權益的押記都是沒有法律的根據而作出的，它們必須被撤銷。

10．答辯人指它在時效條例的條文之下，它有“accrued right”。它說“........ where there is an accrued right, enforcement is not barred by the termination of the contract, but by the said limitation period only”。答辯人是以公契第H-8(e)條作為作出押記的依據，而這個根據是非法的，這 個抗辯理由自然亦不能成立。

11．基於上述的理由，本席批准所有申請人的(a)、(b)及(c)項的申 請。

12．訟費

本席頒下臨時訟費的命令 ：答辯人須支付所有申請人本案的訟費（包括聘用大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由法庭審定。如在14天內與訟任何一方不向本席提出申請，則此項命令作實。

所有申請人：由何梁律師樓代表。

答辯人：由劉大潛律師行代表。