周劍華 訴 簡兆麟

DCCJ 4439/2009

香港特別行區

區域法院

民事訴訟2009年第4439號

主審法官： 區域法院暫委法官黃健棠

聆訊日期： 2011年1月3至5日，2月25日

判案日期： 2011年 4月 7日

判案書

引言

1.被告人是香港新界粉嶺新運路33號粉嶺中心1期B座19樓B5室（“有關物業”）的註冊業主，原告人稱被告人只是有關物業的受託人（trustee），他才是實益擁有人（beneficial owner），被告人反對，雙方就這爭議訴諸法庭。

原告人案情

2.2009年10月12日，原告人入禀本院，要求法庭宣布被告人只是以信託形式替他代持有關物業，並命令前者將業權轉回。

3.在申索陳述書中，原告人說，約從2006年1月起，他以非正式的基礎（informal basis）在保險貸款有限公司（Policy Loan Company Limited）（“保貸”）工作，負責收數，月薪$15,000。

4.被告人是一名會計師，他與原告人均是陳英明先生的親密朋友（close friend），陳先生持有保貸50%股權，亦透過被告人作為其任命者（nominee）管理保貸。

5.2006年中左右，原告人向陳先生透露希望與女友結婚及購買居所，陳先生表示支持及承諾付出部分樓價作為結婚禮物，並提議餘款由銀行按揭辦理。

6.由於原告人不能提出正式在職證明，沒有銀行願意貸款給他，於是約在2006年9月時，三方經口頭討論後，同意有關信託安排，由答辯人購入物業、再申請按揭，而貸款則由原告人全數負責。

7.之後，經原告人委托經紀尋找單位及議價，被告人分別在2006年9月15日、2006年10月14日及2006年11月14日簽署臨時買賣合約、正式買賣合約和轉名契。

8.原告人解釋付款方法如下：

9.另外，有關物業的差餉、水、電等雜費由原告人或李小姐繳付。

被告人案情

10.被告人提出抗辯。

11.在答辯書中，被告人說原告人不是保貸的僱員，他一直以個人身份作為獨立承包人（independent contractor）或經利高融資有限公司（Listco Capital Limited）向保貸提供收數服務，不過在2008年6月時被發現私下向客人收取$66,000，而沒有上報，因此遭終止服務。

12.被告人不是會計師，卻是商人和投資者。

13.被告人確與陳先生是認識超過20年的親密朋友，由於陳先生生意不順利，所以被告人一直支持及幫助他，包括容許他在保貸辦公室經營私人生意、介紹商業伙伴等等。

14.被告人是保貸的唯一及實質擁有人。

15.購買有關物業是被告人的個人投資，由陳先生在2006年初提議，亦經他安排細節；被告人否認這事與原告人結婚有關，而事實上他亦只是2008年左右才結婚。

16.被告人同樣地解釋付款方法：

17.至於差餉、水、電等付費經由陳先生負責處理，而他亦不時將單據交給答辯人支付。

證人及爭議點

18.雙方按一貫程序處理案件，包括交換文件、證人陳述書等等，原告人一共傳召6位證人：原告人本身、李小姐、陳先生、地產經紀劉小姐，保貸前董事Vaughn David, Bricknell先生及保貸前員工楊小姐；而被告人則選擇自己作供。證人供詞中較為特別的是：原告人表示陳先生是他同母異父的兄長，被告人一直也清楚知道；不過，被告人則否認，説道他是直至收到原告人的證人陳述書才第一次聽到這樣的關係。

19.2010年7月9日，雙方同意本案爭議點為：

“     Who is/are the beneficial owner(s) of the property at Flat B5, 19^th Floor, Block B, Phase 1 Development Fanling Centre, No. 33 San Wan Road, Fanling, New Territories, Hong Kong (the “Property”)”?

a. The reason for the purchase of the Property by the Defendant.

b.  Whether the Defendant is holding the Property as legal and beneficial owner or under common intention trust or resulting trust for the Plaintiff?

c.  Who paid the purchase price, commission, stamp duty, mortgage loan and other outgoings of the Property?

d.  Whether the Plaintiff was an employee of Policy Loan Company Limited (“Company”) and whether there was any arrangement as alleged by the Plaintiff that part of his salary from the Company was designated and applied for payment of mortgage instalments.”

裁決

20.案件其後在本席席前審訊4天，原告人親自行事，而被告人則由劉大律師代表。在考慮所有呈堂證據、證人供詞及雙方陳述後，本席決定判處原告人敗訴，簡而言之，被告人案情有其不足之處，但是，原告人的更多問題，難以令人信服，由於在民事案中，原告人有舉證責任，說服法院其提出的案情多半屬實，而本席認為原告人未能達標，因此法庭在這原則下，接受被告人的案情，而原告人則不得獲發其要求的濟助。

21.被告人的案情，有以下問題：

(a) 雖說有關物業是個人投資，而一切事宜交由陳先生處理，但被告人在購入及之後如何處置它的安排似乎有點不太關心。

(b)  被告人解釋如何歸還陳先生代他支付的部分樓價有點堆砌：

“16. The debts owed to Chan was settled in the following manners:

(A) On 21 September 2006, my solicitors Yu Hung & Co paid to Chan $42,289.23 being the money I left in the account of the solicitors firm after the Property transaction by a cheque no. 921700 of Standard Chartered Bank.

(B)   Set-off by the money that my wife and I paid in advance to Chan for discharging the expenses of our personal affairs.  Chan had been helping me and my wife on our personal affairs for some time before the Property transactions.

(C)   Set-off by paying the banquet bill of Chan’s 25^th wedding anniversary held at the HK Jockey Club in the sum of $20,610 on 17 November 2007 (I am a member of the HK Jockey Club and booked and paid the banquet at the request of Chan).

（被告人第一份證人陳述書）”

22.不過，原告人的案情，有更多、更嚴重的問題：

(a) 原告人的口供與文件出現矛盾，而且亦不時出現不準確的情況，雖未致肯定是說謊，但也令法庭難於依靠。

(b)  原告人聲稱自己是保貸僱員，但未能提出有力的客觀證據，其工作日誌、收取報酬的資料亦可是為提供收數服務而出現的，但其實對原告人不利的是：他曾書面確認自己的不是僱員的身份:

(c ) 在申索陳述書中，原告人聲稱自己只是收數員，但作證時又補充説會負責公司業務拓展、招聘及行政工作；原告人說被告人是會計師，但這實在不確；原告人亦在申索陳述書上說沒有銀行願意貸款給他，因為他不能提出正式在職證明，但其庭上口供卻是曾有不良信貸紀錄。

(d) 雙方有否達成信託協議當然是本案關鍵，但原告人的口供出現不同的版本：

“30. ……

a. First, P said only Chan had discussed with D and the 3 of them never discussed the trust arrangement together.

b. Second, when P was put to the pleadings about the 3 parties meeting, he offered another version that there was a 3-person telephone conference.

c. Third, P gave another version that P met D at Landmark. P phoned Chan in US. P passed the phone to D to talk to Chan and there was never a 3-person telephone conference.

d. ……

e. When P was asked which version is true, his answer is NOT stressing the actual facts but “the most detailed one that I said is the true version”!

（劉大律師結案陳詞）”

(e)  另外，亦如劉大律師在結案陳詞中指出，原告人只是在庭上才披露在置地廣場發生的事情，而且亦有以下問題：

“32. The details and sequence of the events as to the agreement to sign the S&P in Landmark were also inconsistent and incredible:

(a) In cross-examination, P confirmed that in the telephone dialogue, it was never mentioned that D had agreed to take out a mortgage. However, in the SOC, it is pleaded that at the oral discussion among the 3 parties, D agreed to take out the mortgage. When the differences were put to P, his answer is that the information in the pleading is wrong. It is difficult to accept P was telling the truth.

a. In cross examination, P said before signing the S&P, there was no discussion of the trust arrangement. However, the evidence goes against the pleadings again. At A22§8, it is stated “Pursuant to the Arrangement and not otherwise, on 15 September, D entered into the PSPA ……”. When the discrepancies were put to P, his reply was “What I said were the facts!”.

33. A lot of important dialogues allegedly happened in Landmark between P and D was not in P’s witness statement at all:

(a) At Landmark, P and D discussed (note only P and D without Chan):

(i) What if the property price falls, P will buy back?

(ii) How can P afford the monthly installment?  (Note, if P was in fact an employee of the Company, this question will NOT be asked at all as D knows P has a monthly salary of $15,000!)

(iii)  D said “I help you by holding the Property, don’t trick me!”

(b)     If these really happen, it is not possible for P to miss such important evidence in his witness statement and it is impossible for P to plead there was a 3-person meeting.”

(f) 對第一、二期按金，本席覺得原告人要“歸還”被告人$10,000，$2,000及$21,000亦有點奇怪，要是這屬陳先生送給他的結婚禮物，為何不讓陳先生與被告人解決？

(g)  在庭上作供時，當原告人被問及有否要求被告人簽署信託聲明 (declaration of trust) 以避免日後紛爭，他回答道，不只有，而且律師更已草擬好有關文件，只是被告人一直不願或不肯簽妥，但奇怪的是，這樣重要的文件沒有呈堂，而且原告人解釋說怕麻煩律師，所以沒有安排他作供，這未免令人難以信服。

23.陳先生亦是本案很關鍵的證人，法庭是否取信於他，會直接影響案件的發展，但可惜，本席也認為他是不可依賴的證人。

(a)  他似乎不甚願意作證，認為給他帶來很多麻煩，像劉大律師說：-

“63. ……

All along, he was evasive and did not answer the questions put to him, including questions by his own brother.  He is not willing to give evidence to support his brother.  At some time, he was asking to leave.”

(劉大律師結案陳詞）

如本席在庭上指出，如原告人所說屬實，即陳先生希望依母親遺願，照顧同母異父弟弟，因此協助他成家立室，陳先生應盡力幫忙才對，如原告人所言屬實，他就是本案的始作俑者。

(b) 本案中涉及很多事實爭議，但雙方都同意有關銀行每月貸款多由保貸支付，因此“保貸誰屬”的問題雖非直接爭議，亦與本案有關，對此問題，陳先生除口頭堅持自己是保貸的實質擁有人外，並沒有提出任何其他證據；相反，被告人則提交了他存入保貸作為資本不少於$2m的證據。

(c)  就雙方信託協議有否在置地廣場發生的事宜，陳先生的供詞除與原告人有衝突外，亦有“改動”之嫌。

“31. The versions given by P and Chan respectively as to why D agreed to sign the S&P are also significantly different:

(a) P said after signing S&P, he realized that he could not obtain a mortgage . As Chan was in US, he called him. Chan replied that he had to think and would call him back later. 30 minutes later, Chan returned call and told P to find D to sign it. It appears to suggest Chan had talked to D during the 30 minutes. P then hanged up and called D and subsequent met D at Landmark.

(b) As to Chan’s evidence:

(i) Although Chan said at that time he was in US, Chan disagreed that a conversation took place on 15 September 2006 (contrary to P’s case).

(ii) Chan said the 3 parties never get together and talked about that D was to act as the trustee.  Chan said “no need to do so, I told D to do something, he would do so and listen to me”.  Chan further said he personally talked to D about the trust arrangement and there was no 3-person conversation at all.

(iii)  Chan’s version as to the telephone conversation with P is that P phoned him and told him that he had purchased the flat.  At that time he was sleeping and he just replied “Ah … (or Ogh …)” and there was no other conversation.  He did not have telephone conversation with D after speaking to P (this is contrary to P’s evidence).  He met D in person to talked about the trust arrangements only after the phone call from P.

(iv)  Amazingly, on the following morning after the adjournment, Chan suddenly changed his evidence to (i) he recalled that P handed the phone to D and they talked about the arrangement; (ii) he talked with D and D agreed to be the trustee before the hone call from P.

(v) These all go against his evidence on the day before the adjournment.

(vi)  When the discrepancies were put to Chan, he could not give any reasonable explanations.  Further, suddenly he asked whether he can stop giving evidence and walked away.  It is submitted that considering all the circumstances and conducts of Chan, both P and Chan are not telling the truth.

(劉大律師結案陳詞)”

24.最後，關於原告人的其他證人，簡單說，本席相信他們大概只將自己所知所見說給法庭知道，以幫助決定事情誰是誰非，但畢竟他們所知的大多屬傳聞證供（hearsay evidence）或未有觸及本案的重點爭議問題，所以不足以起決定作用。

結論

25.總括而言，就雙方在事實方面的爭議，本席接受被告人提出的案情為依歸，重點是，在有關時候，被告人不知原告人與陳先生是同母異父的關係，被告人接受陳先生提議，投資購入有關物業，陳先生、原告人及李小姐只是從旁協助買賣、按揭事宜，他們之間並無任何信託協議，被告人是有關物業的註册業主及實益擁有人。另外，就雙方提出本案的爭議點，本席的裁決是：

被告人是有關物業的實益擁有人。

(a) 購買有關物業是被告人的個人投資。 

(b) 被告人不是以共同意向信託或歸復信託持有有關物業。

(c) 有關物業的第一、二期按金由被告人支付，第三期按金、印花税及經紀佣金先由陳先生代付及/或安排代付，被告人再與其對數歸還，銀行每月供款多由保貸支付、但不是從原告人的薪金中扣除，至於按揭尾數 $910,500.00， 雙方並無爭議，由被告人在2009年12月14日全數清還。另外，一切其他水、電、管理費等等開支被告人亦交由陳先生打理，而他再轉託原告人或李小姐處理，若單據送到交到被告人時，他便會清付。

(d) 原告人不是保貸的僱員，當中亦沒有任何安排的他的薪金或報酬用以支付銀行每月供款。

因此，本席撤銷原告人所有申索。

26.至於訟費，按一般慣例，原告人須支付被告人本案的訟費，包括2011年1月3至5日及2月25日的大律師費用，如雙方未能就金額達成協議，有關事宜則交由聆案官評定，本訟費命令為暫時性質，如雙方未有在14天內，即2011年 4月21 日或之前提出異議申請，則將成為正式命令。

原告人無律師代表

被告人由M/s. D.S. Cheung & Co.指示 Mr. Roy Lau 大律師代表

有關向上訴法庭提出的相關上訴，請參閲HCMP1082/2011。