中國銀行(香港)有限公司 訴 范慧娟

DCCJ 6173/2003

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事訴訟2003年第6173號

__________

BETWEEN

__________

主審法官: 黃慶春法官法庭聆訊

聆訊日期: 2005年3月1日，3日及10日

頒下判決書日期: 2005年6月28日 

判決書

1.本案原告為中國銀行（香港）有限公司。原告乃一所在香港登記之銀行，經營銀行業務，營業地址為香港花園道一號中國銀行大廈14樓。在2001年10月1日，根據中國銀行（香港）有限公司（合併條例）香港法例第1167章，國華商業銀行正式與其他八間銀行等一起合併歸納，統稱為中國銀行（香港）有限公司。據此原告代表國華商業銀行向被告人范慧娟追討因被告人所簽署的一份按揭擔保書的責任，所追討的是樓宇售賣後借款人仍拖欠的差額，總數包括利息至2005年3月6日為$402,094.63。

背景

2.被告人范慧娟之親妹范慧芳女士在2000年是國華商業銀行（下稱“銀行”）的客戶。在2000年1月下旬，范慧芳女士收到香港房屋委員會（下稱“HKHA”）自置居所貸款計劃「原則上批准書」，發信日期為2000年1月25日。HKHA通知范慧娟女士根據其自置居所貸款計劃提交的購買私人住宅樓宇資助申請書，經審核後，HKHA認為她符合資格，原則上批准她領取一筆過按揭還款保有金或免息貸款，以便購買私人住宅樓宇。批准規則規定范慧娟女士必須在批准有效期內購買私人住宅樓宇單位。批准書所列包括下列規定：

“	(4)	你現應與任何一家參與銀行洽商，以確定獲取按揭貸款資格，然後選購私人樓宇、自費支付臨時定金及簽訂臨時買賣協議，並與賣方律師預約日期簽訂正式買賣協議。
	(5)	你須事先與自置居所貸款股辦事處約定時間，然後帶同有關文件（請參照附件「重要事項」），前往該辦事處與房委會簽訂一份具約束力的協議。”

3.文件更指出領取免息貸款港幣40/50萬元正條件：

“	*為符合領取房委會所提供的免息貸款的資格，你必須獲得參與銀行提供的銀行貸款以支付部份樓價，並簽署按揭文件將物業作為銀行貸款及房委會免息貸款的抵押，在償還銀行貸款的同時，你須經參與銀行償還房委會的免息貸款，房委會所提供不同的貸款額有不同的還款年期（請參照附件「重要事項」）。
	(6)	若你選擇領取港幣40/50萬元貸款，則應在繳付樓宇定金後，通知自置居所貸款股。你須預留與房委會簽署貸款協議的日期起計至少14個工作天的時間，以便參與銀行批核你的按揭貸款申請，並與房委會一起安排在你簽訂買賣協議或按揭契據/樓花按揭契據（視乎情況而定）當日，支付貸給你的款項。
	(8)	然後，你應把該資格證明書交給曾洽商的參與銀行，以便安排支付貸款及辦理按揭手續。
	(9)	你簽訂買賣協議或按揭契據/樓花按揭契據（視乎情況而定）時，參與銀行會代為繳付所購樓宇的首期及/或樓價餘款，款額最高可達港幣40/50萬元，若首期少於此數，銀行會在你簽訂轉讓契時，把餘額用以支付其餘部份樓價。”

4.范慧芳女士在收到2000年1月25日的「原則上批准書」後，選擇購買位於荃灣中心南寧大廈16座18樓C的樓宇。樓價為$1,115,000。後經香港房屋委員會（HKHA）批准，更在2000年3月21日發出一份自置居所貸款計劃資格證明書予范慧芳女士，證明她有資格接受HKHA所貸款項共HK$500,000，以便購買該荃灣中心之物業。根據同日2000年3月21日，香港房屋委員會所發出之證明信件（可見於文件夾C36頁），文件指出范慧芳女士的申請已被批准，所購買之物業為荃灣中心南寧大廈16座18樓C。文件更指出范慧芳女士與HKHA在同日（即2000年3月21日）已簽署了貸款合約書，而范女士必須在2000年4月10日（即簽署貸款合約後之10天內）到貸款銀行簽署按揭合約。

5.國華商業銀行於1999年3月15日已和香港房屋委員會簽署合約，承諾作為HKHA自置居所貸款計劃下其中一間按揭貸款銀行。

6.因此，范慧芳女士在指定時間內向國華商業銀行申請按揭貸款$650,000去購買該荃灣中心物業。范慧芳女士亦於2000年4月10日在律師樓簽署按揭合約，向國華商業銀行借款$650,000。此按揭合約可見於文件C夾第60頁。按揭合約清楚指出范慧芳女士向國華商業銀行之貸款是基於HKHA已批准范慧芳女士自置居所貸款計劃，並由HKHA貸款$500,000予她作為購買自置居所之一部份費用。國華商業銀行因此提供樓宇按揭貸款$650,000讓范慧芳女士可完成購買該物業。按揭合約之第一段（1）及（2）款清楚列出貸款人須在HKHA之$500,000還款額分為168期，月供$2,976.19。而銀行所借之款項$650,000則以年息9厘計算，並須分216期，月供$6,086.89以歸還所借之款項及利息。

7.根據銀行與HKHA的合約規定，銀行必須依照合約規定替HKHA收回HKHA所提供給貸款人的$500,000免息貸款。而銀行作為HKHA的代理人，承諾全權為HKHA代理收回該筆貸款的責任。因此，銀行與范慧芳的按揭合約中清楚指出，范慧芳必須歸還該兩筆貸款，即HKHA所借出的$500,000及銀行所借出的$650,000。按揭合約更清楚規定范慧芳女士的每月供款若未能達至指定的數目，所供的任何款項必須以同時及同等地（pari passu）由銀行及HKHA分配於還款之金額中。

8.以上規則詳情可參閱文件夾C60-62頁：-

“	1.	In consideration of the sum of DOLLARS FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND --------------Hong Kong Currency (HK$500,000.00) already paid or to be paid by HKHA to the Mortgagor on or before the date hereof (the receipt of which the Mortgagor hereby acknowledges) (the whole of such principal sum or the balance thereof from time to time outstanding being hereinafter referred to as “the HKHA Loan”) and the sum of DOLLARS Hong Kong Currency (HK$650,000.00) paid by the Mortgage in its capacity as a lender to the Mortgagor on or before the date hereof (the receipt of which the Mortgagor hereby also acknowledges) (the whole of such principal sum or the balance thereof from time to time outstanding being hereinafter referred to as “the Bank Loan”, the Bank Loan and the HKHA Loan being hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Loan”), the Mortgagor covenants with the Mortgagee (as agent for the Lenders) that Subject as hereinafter provided the Mortgagor will repay to the Mortgagee (as agent for the Lenders) the Loan in the following manner:-
		(i)	the principal sum of HK$500,000.00, being the HKHA Loan (which shall be interest free until default) by 168 equal monthly instalments of HK$2,976.19 each and
		(ii)	for the principal sum of HK$650,000.00, being the Bank Loan (with interest thereon at the rate of nine percent (9.00%) per annum or such other rate as is from time to time charged by the Mortgagee (as a lender) on advances of a similar nature such interest to be calculated with the usual monthly rests) by 216 equal monthly instalments of HK$6,086.89 each
	until the Loan with interest thereon as aforesaid (together with default interest, if applicable) shall be fully paid and satisfied the first of such payments to be made on the date falling one month from the date of the advance of the Bank Loan and all subsequent monthly instalments to be made on the corresponding day of each every month after that date such monthly instalments referred to in (i) and (ii) above being credited in the first place in respect of the interests on the Bank Loan, and secondly (but only if the Mortgagee shall elect so to do) in respect of any disbursements or expenses incurred or paid by the Mortgagee in connection with the exercising of any powers herein contained, and thirdly in respect of default interest (if any) due on HKHA Loan and the Bank Loan pari passu, and any balance of such instalments shall be applied in reduction of the HKHA Loan and the Bank Loan pari passu owing on that date PROVIDED ALWAYS and the said advance is made upon condition that (subject as in this proviso mentioned) the Mortgagee, (on behalf of the Lenders) may at any time or times and from time to time during the continuance of this security if and whenever the Mortgagee (on behalf of the Lenders) considers it desirable raise or lower the rate of interest applicable for the time being hereunder …..”

9.再者，若受益人/借款人未能還款，按揭合約也有清楚明決的規定。條款指出，若按揭人未能支付每月的按揭利息及本金予承按人，因此違反合約及拖欠按揭貸款（包括歸還予政府的本金還款），則承按人或政府可收回該物業。以上條款可見於文件夾第64-65頁，按揭合約之第5段。文件夾第66頁（g）5（2）段更指出，當承按公司收回該物業後，可以提出任何法律上的程序去收租、接受租金或利潤以及作出任何形式的程序去保持、保管及管理該物業。此外，承按人更可把物業出租、出賣或以任何方法處置此按揭物業。詳情可見文件夾第70頁按揭合約第11頁5（iv）段:-

“	(iv)	Any moneys received by the Mortgagee or any receiver from the letting, leasing, sale or other dealing with the Property or any security comprised in this Charge shall be held by the Mortgagee or the receiver upon trust to be applied according to the following priority:-
		(a)	in discharge of all rent, taxes, rates and other outgoings due and affecting the Property;
		(b)	unless the Property is sold subject to a prior incumbrance, in discharge of that prior incumbrance;
		(c)	in payment of the receiver’s lawful remuneration, costs, charges and expenses and all lawful costs and expenses properly incurred in the letting, leasing, sale or other dealing;
		(d)	in payment of all principal, interest and costs and all other moneys due and owing on the security of this Charge;
		and any residue shall be paid to the person who immediately before any sale or other dealing was entitled to the Property or authorized to give a receipt for the proceeds of the sale of the Property.”

10.再者，文件夾第92-93頁，即按揭合約之第19段第6小段規定：-

“The expression “Secured indebtedness” shall mean and include the loan (and interest and/or default interest thereon).”

而“The loan” 則在上文第8段所節錄的第61頁，按揭文件第1段所指是包括銀行之貸款及HKHA之貸款，統稱為“The loan”。

擔保書（Deed of Guarantee）

11.被告人與原告銀行的合約文件是一份擔保書（可見於文件夾第100頁至108頁）。擔保書首頁有以下之條文：-

“	IMPORTANT NOTICE TO THE GUARANTOR
	This Guarantee will create legal obligations and liabilities on your part.  You are strongly advised to seek independent legal advice before you execute this Guarantee.
	Without prejudice to any provision of this Guarantee, please take note of the following:-
	(1)	You may become liable (and if you consist of two or more persons, you may become liable jointly and severally), instead of or as well as the Principal, for all debts and liabilities (whether actual or contingent, and whether past, present or future) incurred by owing from the Principal to us at any time and from time to time.
	(2)	Your maximum liability under this Guarantee is the amount set out in the Second Schedule hereto plus the sums referred to in Clause B(ii) of this Guarantee.  Where no amount is specified in the Second Schedule, the amount ultimately enforceable against you will be unlimited.
	(3)	Subject to (2) above, you will be required to pay, on demand by us, all sums of money debts and liabilities of the Principal.  By way of examples and without limitation, you may be called upon to pay under this Guarantee if the Principal has failed to pay us any indebtedness when due or on demand or if you and/or the Principal are unable or admit inability to pay debts generally as they become due or in the event of any proceedings in or analogous to bankruptcy, insolvency, winding up or liquidation against you or the Principal.
	PROVIDED ALWAYS that:
	(i)	where no amount is specified in the Second Schedule hereto as a Specified Amount, the amount ultimately enforceable against me/us under this Guarantee shall for all intents and purposes be unlimited; but
	(ii)	where there is a Specified Amount set out in the Second Schedule hereto, the total liability ultimately enforceable against me/us under this Guarantee shall not exceed in the aggregate an amount being the total of the Specified Amount together with a sum equal to all interest accrued or to be accrued on the Specified Amount calculated at the Agreed Interest Rate(s), (as well after as before judgment) to the date of actual payment and all those amounts referred to in sub-clauses B(c) and B(d) above, PROVIDED ALWAYS that where the total debts and liabilities owing by the Principal to the Bank exceeds the limit ultimately enforceable against me/us under this Guarantee, the Bank shall be entitled at its absolute discretion to determine which part or parts of such debts and liabilities shall be guaranteed and/or demanded hereunder AND PROVIDED FURTHER that in such event, should such debts and liabilities (or any part or parts thereof) determined by the Bank to be guaranteed and/or demanded under this Guarantee be paid by the Principal or any third party or parties other than me/us, my/our liabilities hereunder shall not thereby be deemed, diminished or discharged and the Bank shall be entitled to re-determine such other part or parts of the debts and liabilities then owing by the Principal to be guaranteed hereunder and demanded accordingly.”

12.此擔保書是被告人於2000年4月7日在律師樓簽訂的。擔保書上所列被告人擔保的上限為HK$650,000（可見於文件夾第107頁）。但上述列出之文件夾101頁，擔保書B（ii）的條文指出，被告人作為擔保人的擔保金額，雖不能超越擔保書上所列出之上限，但借款人所欠銀行之貸款若超出擔保人承擔之上限，銀行可全權決定貸款人所欠之數目的任何部份作為擔保金以內之部份。而且，當銀行成功向借款人或任何第三者取得欠款的任何數目，銀行可全權決定減去貸款的任何部份。而其餘部份均可被銀行定為擔保書所擔保的部份。這段條文更指出銀行可在出售收回物業後，所收之得益用作償還貸款的任何部份，所剩餘的欠款在資不抵債之情況之下，可向擔保人及貸款人追討不足之數。

13.根據被告人所簽署的擔保書條文，她保證代借款人償還所有欠款，包括借戶本來及將來欠銀行的欠款，上限訂為HK$650,000。擔保書其他條款包括縱容條款（Indulgence clause） — 銀行有權縱容借戶亦毋須先行變賣借戶提供之抵押押品。（2） 後加抵押條款（Additional security clause） — 保證書與其他擔保或抵押品無關，亦並不代替其他擔保或抵押品。（3）強烈執行還款條款（Enforcing payment clause） — 銀行有權先向擔保人強制執行其法律責任，並不須先向借戶追討。（4）確鑿的證據條款（Conclusive evidence clause） — 從銀行即時的任何一份證明債款數目的證明文件，在任何法律訴訟中將成為證明借戶的欠款的確鑿證據。（5）過期欠款收取過期利息（Default interest clause） — 銀行將按過期欠款收取過期利息，利率以銀行不時刊佈的Schedule on banking fee 上的銀行收費表上的暫時透支（Temporary overdraft or over limit）之利率計算。（6）不須預早通知條款（No demand prior to determination） — 擔保人同意銀行並不需要先向擔保人作出通知或副本要求之情況下，向擔保人提出終止擔保書及要求擔保人支付貸款人所欠之貸款金額。（文件夾102頁擔保書第6A段）

14.借款人在2002年7月後沒有再按月還款給HKHA及銀行，原告於2002年9月20日開始發信追討還款。而被告人在2002年11月起一共代借款人償還HK$39,142.38。即（1）2002年11月30日還HK$24,200作為償還2002年後7月所欠之款項；（2）2002年12月、2003年1月和2月，每月一期，每期還HK$4,647.46。（3）2003年4月還HK$1,000。自此之後，被告人向銀行表示她無力再替借款人償還任何欠款。而被告人之所以得知借款人欠供銀行的貸款是因為銀行曾於2002年11月13日，透過律師發信向被告人追討還款的原故。

15.借款人在2003年1月3日把物業交還銀行，而銀行行使了在按揭書之售樓權利，在2004年2月18日交由地產經紀負責出賣該物業。原告與買家於2003年4月9日簽訂臨時買賣合約，物業亦在2003年5月6日成功售出，成交價為港幣$480,000。原告銀行把售樓費用扣除，將餘數按比例pari passu 償還尚欠原告銀行借給借款人的及HKHA借給借款人之欠款。最後，據原告的計算，借款人尚欠銀行餘數共$347,965.71，加上過期利息以11%年息計算，由2003年6月16日向被告人發信追討該款項起計。

被告人的抗辯

16.被告人的抗辯則為 1)否認訂立合約的抗辯（Non est factum）， 2）銀行作出失實陳述的指控（Misrepresentation）, 3）銀行沒有給予足夠資料 — 不予披露（Non disclosure）。

17.被告人指出，她對英語瞭解不深，雖然她是大專畢業生，她一向只是使用中文較多。她承認她認識英文語文，而且，她亦知道該擔保書是一份擔保文件。她指出，當簽署擔保書時律師沒有詳細向她解釋內容，或向她指出需要償還銀行之貸款外，更要支付HKHA的$500,000貸款。而銀行更曾經向她保證，貸款擔保只是擔保銀行那$650,000貸款而已。她指出，現在銀行在售樓後，將餘數部份用作賠償歸還HKHA的$500,000貸款，並未有把全部售樓後所得之金錢用作償還那$650,000貸款，銀行無權作出這樣的安排。因此，她的抗辯理由為Non est factum，Misrepresentation及Non disclosure — 否認曾訂立合約，失實陳述及不予披露的抗辯。

18.文件證據顯示銀行均給予詳細的指示律師去準備和執行抵押貸款融通信件（facility letter）和擔保信。而律師也依照銀行的指示準備了一切的法律文件（可見於文件夾第49-58頁）。銀行給黃與黃律師行的指示可見於文件夾第49頁的2000年3月20日的信件。在文件夾57頁一封黃與黃律師行2000年4月7日給銀行的信件清楚列出，律師已依照銀行2000年3月20日的信件指示以及2000年3月24日的信件指示預備了按揭合約，而此按揭合約是把物業一起按給銀行及HKHA。第二份法律文件則為擔保書，兩份文件均由借款人及擔保人作出簽署。在文件夾第58頁，法律押記之細則中列出借款人名字、地址、身份証號碼、擔保人名字及所抵押之物業地址、年期及按揭貸款包括（1）$650,000定按，每月還款若干及分若干期歸還等等。第（2）包括定額貸款$500,000由房屋委員會HKHA，根據居屋貸款條件分若干還款期，每月還款若干等。此份4月7日之信件，清楚顯示律師已經清楚將全部按揭之金額列出，並由借款人簽署作實。文件夾第53頁，為一份銀行保留的文件，此文件內容如下：-

“經適當及審慎考慮此函的內容後，本人/吾等同意接納貸款並接受此函所列之全部條款及條件約束。本人吾等現要求並授權  貴銀行將前述之貸款金額港幣________存入律師行之帳戶內。

英文原文如下：

After due and careful consideration of the contents of this letter, I/we agree to accept the Loan and be bound by all the terms and conditions herein set out.  I/We hereby request and authorize you to credit the sum of HKD650,000.00 into the account of M/S. Wong & Wong (Clients’ A/C).”

下款由借款人及按揭人范慧芳女士簽署，日期為2000年4月7日，亦由擔保人范慧娟在日期2000年4月7日確認及加簽，文件下款更列出文件已附上擔保書。據此份文件日期來看，是與黃與黃律師行給銀行之2000年4月7日信件（即文件夾第57至58頁）同時簽署的。

19.根據被告人范慧娟女士的證供，她在2000年1月間，妹妹范慧芳女士在電話上向她作出要求，就她在購買物業向銀行貸款一事，作為她的擔保人。范慧芳女士的證供與范慧娟女士的證供均為一致，指出此要求是在電話通話中作出，而范慧芳女士並未向范慧娟女士出示任何相關的文件。范慧芳女士在她的證供中承認，她收到並閱讀過及瞭解兩封由HKHA發出的信件，即「原則上批准貸款書」及後來的「貸款批准書」。而范慧芳女士與被告范慧娟女士的證供同樣指出范慧芳女士並未要求范慧娟女士擔保HKHA的貸款。范慧芳女士曾告訴被告人她不需要為HKHA的貸款作出擔保。被告人更指出她曾經向HKHA查詢HKHA的貸款是否需要擔保，但HKHA的職員告訴她，HKHA並不要求擔保人的提供。而被告人范慧娟女士指出，她同意擔保銀行貸款是根據以上的保證，她不用擔保HKHA的貸款，而她的擔保只是止於港幣$650,000，而HKHA的貸款$500,000是無息貸款，因此她同意作為范慧芳女士的擔保人，並向銀行提供身份證及入息證明。范慧娟女士指出她到律師樓簽署擔保書的時候是單獨前往，她亦承認關於當日的情況，她只是粗略記得，當時有一位男士向她解釋簽擔保書的含意，那位男職員簡單地解釋擔保信的性質和條款之後，便要求她在有顯示的地方簽上名字，但在簽上名字之前，她未有閱讀過該文件。被告人的證供指出，銀行的代表曾告訴她若借戶違約，銀行售樓後不足償還$650,000的貸款的話，她只須負責借戶的欠款，上限為$650,000。被告人在庭上作供，經過盤問之後，她承認因為時日久遠，她已無法記得在會議期間銀行的律師實在向她說了些甚麼，她同意當時沒有與銀行的法律代表談論或提出與按揭有關的問題。被告人同意，在擔保信首頁頁首有「Important notice to the guarantor」 的重要通知的幾段文字，勸告擔保人尋求獨立法律意見。但被告人同意她沒有因那份擔保書另外尋求獨立法律意見。被告人范女士同意雖然對英文認識有限，但她能夠瞭解「Important notice to the guarantor」 的意思。她指出，她雖瞭解這些詞句的意思，但她沒有因此細心閱讀文件內容，因為她相信律師已向她解釋及透露所有相關的內容。她亦承認她有若干次買賣物業及物業抵押的經驗，她均充份信任律師會向她解釋文件的內容，雖然在本案的情況下，她明白銀行的律師並不是代表她的律師。

裁決

抗辯一Non est factum抗辯理由

20.被告人范慧娟女士接受她瞭解英語「Important notice to the guarantor」 的意思，但她自行決定不考慮此勸告擔保人須尋找獨立法律意見的忠告。根據先例Saunders (Executrix of the Estate of Rose Maud Gallie) v. Anglia Building Society [1971] A.C. 1004。此案之原告寡婦Mrs. Gallie在78歲那年，因為信任她的姪兒，並欲把她的物業送給姪兒，因此簽下了一份她以為是送贈物業給姪兒的文件。因為當時她的眼鏡被打破了，所以未有詳細閱讀文件內容。後來發覺文件原來是一份買賣契約，內容指出物業售價為£3,000，而她卻分文未收取過。後來，她的姪兒把物業拿去按揭，欠了銀行£2,000，用作歸還私人債務，更因未能提供按揭供款而被銀行收樓。原告在姪兒慫恿之下提出訴訟，指出，因她未能亦未有閱讀該轉讓物業契約，要求法庭宣判轉讓契約無效。英國上議院法庭有以下之法律指引：-

“That the plea of non est factum which would make the assignment void against the innocent building society had not been established.  G., having signed what was obviously a legal document on which money was advanced on the faith of it being her document, could not now disavow her signature.”

上議院法庭法官更有以下之裁決：

“Per Lord Reid:- the plea of non est factum could not be available to anyone who signed without taking the trouble to find out at least the general effect of the document.  Nor could it be available to a person whose mistake was really a mistake as the legal effect of the document.  There must be a radical or fundamental difference between what he signed and what he thought he was signing (page 1016F, 1017B-E).

Per Lord Hodson:  The difference to support a plea of non est factum must be in a particular which goes to the substance of the whole consideration or to the root of matter (page 1018H-1019A).

Per Viscount Dilhorne:  It will not suffice if the signor thought that in some respect the document would have a different legal effect from what it has; nor will if suffice if in some respects it departs from what he thought it would contain.  The difference must be such that the document signed is entirely or fundamentally different from that which it was thought to be so that it was never the signor’s intention to execute the document (page 1022G-H).”

21.被告人的抗辯是她未有清楚閱讀擔保書及律師未有把整份文件向她解釋。她並不是指責銀行的律師誤導，令她相信擔保書是一份完全與她所了解不同的文件，只是她對內容不是完全了解而已。既然擔保書首頁首段已經清楚勸告擔保人須找尋獨立法律意見的文字，又既然文件並不是與她所簽署的完全不同的文件，那這個「沒有此事」的抗辯（non est factum）在法律上的要求，與被告人所提出的證供並不符合。因此此抗辯並不成立。

抗辯二（Misrepresentation）銀行所作出的失實陳述的指責

22.被告人證供顯示她曾經向HKHA以電話查詢，HKHA的貸款是否需要擔保，而她所得到的答案是HKHA的貸款並不用擔保。她的證供並未指出銀行曾經對她說HKHA的貸款是不需要以物業作出抵押，亦不需要擔保。銀行或銀行的律師曾經向被告人表示她的擔保數目上限為HK$650,000，與銀行借給借戶的數目相同。但銀行及銀行律師的文件均清楚指出借戶所簽署的貸款抵押合約，貸款金額包括銀行所借出的全部款項外，更包括HKHA所借出的$500,000貸款，而借戶在每月的還款，一部份用作攤還銀行的貸款及利息，另一部份是交還HKHA的貸款。按揭文件清楚指出每月供款是根據比例歸還予銀行及HKHA（pari passu）。既然被告人承認在2000年4月7日，在黃與黃律師行簽署擔保文件之前曾經參閱兩份銀行及律師行所發出之信件（文件夾57-58頁和文件夾53頁），文件58頁提供法律押記資料，文件列出法律押記物業之地址、借款人姓名、住址和擔保人姓名，所擔保押記之物業地址、年期以及押記所擔保之兩項貸款，（1）為HK$650,000，年息及每月供款若干； 第（2）項HKHA的貸款HK$500,000，每月還款若干等等。這份文件在每一項細則上均有符號顯示有人曾經把文件清楚檢閱及核實。既然范慧娟女士經已檢閱此份文件，才簽署第53頁同意接納按揭貸款的擔保，她不能抵賴她接受此按揭貸款文件是包括全部的貸款（即HKHA的$500,000加上銀行的$650,000貸款），而每月的還款是用於歸還銀行的貸款及利息以及HKHA的$500,000貸款。

23.根據被告人的證供，本席不認為她成功證實她曾經受銀行或銀行的律師誤導，向她表示此份按揭是不包含HKHA的$500,000貸款。因為文件清楚地包括了此兩項貸款。

抗辯三（Non disclosure）不予披露

24.被告人范女士指出銀行未有向她透露借款人已多月沒有還款，又未有向她透露其還款責任包括償還HKHA的貸款。范女士更提出銀行不應在售賣該物業之後，未有把賣樓所得之全數金額歸還銀行向貸款人所提供之$650,000，而把部份金錢歸還HKHA的$500,000貸款。

25.在法律上，借款人對擔保人披露借款人資料方面，並沒有全面的披露責任。根據法律書藉Law of Guarantees 4^th Edition 作者Andrews and Millet 第141頁有以下之解釋：-

“Concealment and non-disclosure

The creditor is generally under no duty to disclose material facts to the surety.  This is because a contract of guarantee, unlike a contract of insurance, is not to be treated as a contract uberrimae fidei – of the utmost good faith.  Thus in Seaton v Health [1899] 1 Q.B. 782, Romer L.J. stated at 792:

“Ordinary contracts of guarantee are not amongst those requiring ‘uberrimae fides’ on the part of the creditor towards the surety; and mere non-communication to the surety by the creditor of facts known to him affecting the risk to be undertaken by the surety will not vitiate the contract, unless there be fraud or misrepresentation ……. whether the contract be one requiring ‘uberrimae fides’ or not must depend upon its substantial character and how it came to be effected.”

As a general rule, therefore, the creditor is not obliged to disclose anything he knows which affects the principal’s credit, or of any circumstances unconnected with the transactions in which he is about to engage, which render his position more hazardous, unless the surety makes specific inquiry.  The surety bears the primary obligation to inquire into, and determine, all the relevant facts.

The policy underlying this general rule which is that a surety is expected to look after himself, was encapsulated in this further passage from the judgment of Romer L.J. in Seaton v Health [1899] 1 Q.B. at 793:

“In general, the creditor does not himself go to the surety, or represent, or explain to the surety, the risk to be run.  The surety often takes the position from motives of friendship to the debtor, and generally not as the result of any direct bargaining between him and the creditor, or in consideration of any remuneration passing to him from the creditor.  The risk undertaken is generally known to the surety, and the circumstances generally point to the view that as between the creditor and surety it was contemplated and intended that the surety should take upon himself to ascertain exactly what risk he was taking upon himself.”

Thus the creditor is generally entitled to assume that the prospective surety will acquaint himself with the extent of the principal’s indebtedness, his current financial position and his past track record, so that he can fairly assess the risk that he is undertaking.  If he could be expected to find out the material facts by exercising due diligence then as a general rule he will not be able to complain that the creditor did not tell them what they were: Wason v Vareing (1852) 15 Beav. 151.”

26.以上所節錄的法律書藉指出擔保合約不是坦率誠實的合約，銀行沒有義務向被告人透露銀行所擁有的一切事實及背景的情況。更沒有義務向被告人透露借戶和銀行和HKHA之間的關係。這一切必須由擔保人向自己負責，需要查明究竟在法律上她需要負責的擔保，究竟是甚麼一回事，更要向借戶即范女士的妹妹調查事實之全部與所承擔的債務為何。

27.事實上，銀行根據借貸文件以及黃與黃律師行所發出的文件，亦有明確指示擔保人的擔保書是包括該物業的兩項貸款，即銀行以及HKHA兩項貸款。而且，按揭書及擔保書也有明確清楚地指出銀行有權以任何方式選擇分配收回的款項，並不需要預先諮詢擔保人。擔保書第10段B有以下的條款：

“	10.		Security additional:
		(b)	This Guarantee shall be in addition to and shall not merge with or in any way discharge, prejudice or affect any other guarantees, agreements, undertakings, rights, liens, collateral or other securities now or hereafter held by the Bank from me/us or any one or more of us or any third party or parties for or in respect of all or any part of the debts and liabilities hereby guaranteed nor vice versa should this Guarantee be discharged prejudiced or affected thereby.  Unless specified by the payer, the Bank shall have absolute discretion to apply or appropriate any money received by the Bank for payment of any debts and/or liabilities owing to the Bank by the Principal without any notice or consent of me/us.
	13.	Guarantee of whole debt: Although my/our ultimate liability hereunder cannot exceed the limit hereinbefore provided in proviso (ii) to Section B, if any, this Guarantee shall be construed and take effect as a guarantee of the whole and every part of all debts and liabilities now or at any time hereafter owing to the bank by the Principal.”

28.以上的條款清楚明確指出銀行是有全權分配所收取之償還貸款的安排。被告人指稱銀行售樓後將餘數部份用作償還HKHA的貸款，間接地令她負上擔保HKHA貸款的負擔是一個錯誤的理解。實際上，擔保書以及黃與黃律師行在2000年4月7日之信件，已清楚明確指出所擔保的貸款是包括兩項貸款，即銀行所提供之$650,000以及HKHA所提供之$500,000。這份文件夾第58頁的文件，亦清楚列出：

“	PARTICULARS OF THE LEGAL CHARGE
	(1)	To secure a Fixed Loan of HK$650,000 from your Bank repayable by 216 monthly instalments by HK$6,086.89 (inclusive of interest at the current Bank rate payable monthly) at 9% p.a. subject to fluctuation, the first instalment to be payable one month after the date of advance; and
	(2)	To secure a Fixed Loan of HK$500,000.00 from HKHA under the Home Purchase Loan Scheme (which shall be interest free until default) by 168 equal monthly instalments of HK$2,976.19 each, the first instalment, to be payable on month after the date of advance.  The above proceeds will be crediting to our clients’ A/C on the same Date of the Execution of the Legal Charge.”

此份文件清楚指出借戶每月之供款，已包含歸還予銀行連本帶利$6,086.89，另外歸還HKHA的$500,000，每月供款$2,976.19。既然被告人同意她在參考過這份文件後，才簽署第53頁那份文件以及擔保書，當然她對此種情況，這擔保的貸款是以該物業作為抵押，提供保證$650,000銀行所提供的及HKHA所提供的$500,000貸款，雖然後者不用支付利息，但貸款也需要分期每月歸還。

29.況且，根據擔保條款，被告人不能投訴銀行未有向借款人借戶追討，而只是向她追討所欠供款項。

擔保書第21段有以下的條款：
“	21.	Liabilities primary, invalidity of Principal’s debts etc.: Independent of the above stipulations, I/we further agree to be liable as an independent principal debtor to the Bank for the payment of all sums guaranteed or ought to be guaranteed hereby so that:-
		(a)	This Guarantee may be enforced against me/us (or any one or more of us) without the Bank first enforcing any rights or claims or instituting legal proceedings against the Principal and/or any third party or parties and/or to join in the Principal as a party in the same proceedings against me/us and/or the Bank first realizing or enforcing any of the securities or other guarantees held by the Bank whether from me/us or any other party or parties.”

30.按揭文件第21段清楚給予銀行向借戶或擔保人追討賠償的權利，它完全可以選擇向任何一方追討欠款。因此，根據以上的理由，本席裁定被告人需要向原告負責賠償。

賠償額的爭議

31.被告人范女士進一步指責（1）原告故意拖延該物業銷售的完成日期，以便取得更多利益。（2）原告沒有及時賣樓引致低價售樓。（3）銀行收取$48,000售樓價的訂金之後，沒有即時用作還款。（4）銀行職員劉先生應承被告人，如果范女士代借戶還款便不會收取過期利息。（5）銀行多次拒絕與被告人和解。（6）借戶的過期還款或停止還款，銀行沒有立即發出警告信或（7）立刻通知被告人。

32.銀行所提供之證人劉先生的證供指出，由於借戶2003年1月才正式放棄物業的業權，而在2003年1月之後，銀行才有權開始作出售賣樓宇的準備工作。又由於物業比較陳舊，銀行押品部決定裝修物業內部，可令它更快售出。因此作出簡單裝修之後，在2003年3月18日，才把物業放出到地產經紀。在2003年4月9日，經已簽下臨時買賣合約。而且根據銀行聘用的物業估價，物業售價合乎當時同類物業市場的價格。根據劉先生的證供，以他個人經驗，由交樓至成交四個月內售出是合理的時間，也算是比較快速的時間。

33.本席接納劉先生的證供，銀行經已盡快作出收樓及售樓的程序。本席不認為銀行刻意拖延售樓引致被告人要多付利息。銀行只是根據一般售樓程序去辦事。銀行沒有特別理由拖延此項收樓及售樓的程序，去針對借戶或針對被告人。銀行亦不能預測市場上樓價的高低。至於在利息方面，在按揭書及擔保書中也清楚明確列出銀行可收取的利息，銀行根據合約去辦事，是合法的行為，並沒有証據証明銀行特別刻意留難被告人。

34.根據以上理由，本席批准原告的申索，裁決被告人須向原告支付欠款$402,094.63。

35.原告並可得欠款利息，以原告入禀法庭之日起計直至到裁決當日，以法庭所訂下之息率之一半；而在裁決後之日起計，可得法庭所訂之全息息率，直至全數支付為止。

36.訟費：既然原告得直，暫准命令被告人需要支付原告之訟費包括大律師證書，若雙方未能達成協議，可由法庭聆案官審核決定。

出席人士 :

Miss Janine Cheung 大律師由蔣尚義律師行延聘代表原告人

被告人出席，無律師代表