The Incorporated Owners of Blocks F1 To F7 of Pearl Island Holiday Flats 訴 Fullwill Property Management Ltd

LDBM000273/2000

LDBM 273 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273號

主審法官：周兆熊法官

宣判日期：2002年1月23日

______________

判 決 書

______________

1．2001年10月24日，申請人提出傳票申請，要求土地審裁處 頒佈下列的命令 ：

"1. The Respondent and the Director of the Respondent Chung Chi Wai do comply with the order dated 28th August 2001 made by H. H. Judge Lam within 14 days from the date of this order;

2. Penal notice to be endorsed with this order and personal service of this order be dispensed with;"

2.2001年8月28日，主審本案的林法官在判案書頒佈以下的命令 ：

"1. The Respondent do deliver to the Applicant copies of the bank statements of Hang Seng Bank Account No. 267-185890-018 in the name of the Respondent from January 2000 to June 2000.

2. The Respondent do deliver to the Applicant all cheque stubs and pay-in slips evidencing withdrawal and payment in the said Hang Seng Bank Account No. 267-185890-018 from February 1997 to June 2000 insofar as these documents related to the control, management and administration of the Estate.

3. The Respondent do deliver to the Applicant a Balance Sheets as at 30th June 2000 in respect of the Estate."

3．判案書第49段有以下的判詞 ：

"49. As to the related cheque stubs and pay-in slips, they would have to be produced only if they related to the management of the Estate. If the Respondent can show in respect of a particular entry that it was in fact related to funds of other buildings, they do not need to produce the cheque stub or pay-in slip for that transaction. I will qualify any order accordingly. If disputes shall arise about any entries, the parties can come back to the Tribunal for an adjudication on the question whether a particular entry did relate to the Estate."

4．2001年9月28日，代表申請人的律師行去信答辯人，要求後者交出上述命令所指明的文件。信中說 ：

"We hereby give you formal notice that the above said document shall be delivered to the Applicant or to us on behalf of the Applicant within 7 days from the date hereof. Failing which, our client's will commence contempt of court proceedings."

5．2001年10月9日，代表答辯人的律師事務所致函予代表申請人的律師。信中說 ：

"We enclose herewith a Balance Sheet in respect of Blocks F1 to F7 Pearl Island Holiday Flats as at June 30, 2000 pursuant to the Order made by His Honour Judge Lam dated August 28, 2001 for your client's retention.

We are instructed that our client is in the course of sorting out the relevant bank statements, cheque stubs and pay-in slips in respect of the Hang Seng Bank Account No. 267-185890-018 and would deliver the said documents to you once the same are ready."

6．2001年10月13日，代表答辯人的律師事務所再致函予代表申請人的律師事務所。信中說 ：

"We reiterate that our client is in the course of sorting out the relevant bank statements, cheque stubs and pay-in slips in respect of the Hang Seng Bank Account No. 267-185890-018. As our client was ordered to produce those cheque stubs and pay-in slips in so far as they related to the control, management and administration of the Estate, it needs to go through each entry of the Account in order to sort out the relevant documents. It is , therefore, reasonable for our client to take some times to deal with the matter. We are instructed that the documents would probably be ready for delivery before November 2001."

(原文無底線)

7．2001年11月6日，本席聆聽此傳票申請，並將聆訊押後，以便與訟雙方向法庭存檔有關傳票申請的誓章。2001年12月24日，本席再次聆聽傳票的申請。

8．答辯人的誓章（日期為2001年11月13日）指出，於2001年10月31日，它收到答辯人一些文件；按答辯人的律師事務所於 2001年10月31日發出的信件所述，該些文件是依據2001年8月28日的命令（“8月28日的命令”）而交付予申請人的文件。該信有以下的內容 ：

"We refer to our letter dated October 13,2001 and send you herewith copies of the following documents, pursuant to the Judgment made by His Honour Judge Lam dated August 28,2001, for your onward transmission to your client: -

1. Cheque stubs and pay-in-slips evidencing withdrawal from and payment in the Hang Seng Bank Account No. 267-185890-018 from February 1997 to June 2000 which relate to the control, management and administration of the Estate; and

2. Bank statement of the said account for the period from January 2000 to June 2000.

We further refer to your Summons dated October 24,2001 and the 2nd Affirmation of Chan Chung Moa dated October 23,2001 which were served on our client on October 24,2001.

We have already informed you in our said letter that the outstanding documents would be delivered to you before November 2001. It is unnecessary and a waste of costs for you to take out the said Summons. Please take appropriate actions to withdraw the same and have the hearing date vacated."

9．申請人在它的誓章（日期為2001年11月12日）說 ：

"5. We discovered that many of the cheque stubs and pay-in-slips as required in paragraph (2) of Order of Judge Lam made on 28th August 2001 has not been produced. My solicitor has compared the list with the bank statement and prepared a list of non-delivery bank stubs.............

6. This is not the completed list. The committee is checking the pay-in-slips and will submit a supplemental list soon.

7. I humbly submit that the Respondent has not complied with the said order."

10．2001年11月21日，代表答辯人的Fong Wai Yee律師在誓章 說 ：

"9. Pursuant to paragraph 49 of the Judgment, the Respondent was required to produce the Cheque Stubs and Pay-in Slips if they related to the management of the Estate and if a particular entry related to funds of other buildings, the Respondent is not required to produce the Cheque Stubs and Pay-in Sips of that entry. It is also ordered in Judgment that if disputes shall arise about any entries, the parties can come back to the Tribunal for an adjudication on the question whether a particular entry did relate to the Estate.

10. In the present situation, the Applicant should apply to the Tribunal for an adjudication as to whether the entries in relation to the Cheque Stubs and Pay-in Slips allegedly not delivered by the Respondent relate to the Estate. It is inappropriate for the Applicant to apply in the present Summons for an order to request our client to comply with the Judgment without having applied to the Tribunal to determine whether those entries in fact relate to the Estate."

11．本傳票申請是依據《高等法院規則》第45號命令提出的申請。第45號命令第6(2)條規則是適用於本傳票申請的條文。第6(2)條規則有以下的條文 ：

“(2) 儘管第42號命令第2(1)條規則已有規定，凡一項規定某人須作出某項作為的判決或命令沒有指明須作出該項作為的時限，或該項判決或命令因第42號命令第2(2)條規則而沒有指明該段時限，則法庭仍具有權力在後來作出命令，規定該項作為須在該命令所指明的某段在該命令送達後的時限內或在該命令所指明的其他時限內作出。”

12．對於是否批准申請人的要求，本席主要考慮的因素是申請人是否需要提出本傳票申請。首先，2月28日的命令並無定出交付文件的任何時限。答辯人的律師在2001年10月13日的信中，已述明與8月28日命令有關的文件“would probably be ready for delivery before November 2001”。既然如此，申請人便應等待至10月31日後，才提出此傳票的申請，因為如果它真的在11月前交付符合8月28日命令的文件，則申請人便無需提出本傳票的申請；如果答辯人在11月前交付文件，但申請人認為該些文件不是8月28日命令涵蓋的所有文件，恰當的解決方法是按判案書第49段進行訴訟，因為本席不能在沒有聆訊有關証據後便裁定某一方所言是事實，因此基於此原因申請人亦無需提出本傳票的申請。

13．基於上述的理由，本席撤銷其申請。

14．訟費

申請人須支付答辯人本申請的訟費。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，則該款額由法庭審定。

申請人：由莊凌雲彭志泉律師行代表。

答辯人：由李家傑律師事務所代表。