“聽過雙方的陳詞後，本席認為，即使本席接納答辯人所說，第15條並沒有授權司理以個人身份提訴，但答辯人並不需要根據第15條才能興訟。上訴庭在 Tang Man Kit and Foo Tak Ching (suing as Managers of Wah Yan Mo Fan Heung) CACV 137/2002（13 May 2005）就相類似，但不盡相同，的議題作出討論及裁決。Tang Man Kit案的相關議題是司理可否代表祖堂興訟，而本案的議題是申請人既然是司理身份，他是否可以個人名義興訟而不標明自己是司理身份，即連司理人的身份也沒有在申請通知書的標題及內容提出。本席認為上訴庭Tang Man Kit案所倚重的其中一個法律原則可引用在本案。該法律原則是租客不得指業主無權興訟（Estoppel by Tenancy)。”
“答辯人提出被再興訟的風險，事實上，這顧慮曾被終審庭在同一案件的上訴中考慮過，終審庭的判案書（FACV No 11 of 2003 dated 15 June 2004）第20段被張法官在第43段引用如下：
43. The defendant, as an outsider of the Heung, had gone to undue length to challenge the status of the Heung and the managers when its stake in the land only came from the Heung and the mangers. This is an extraordinary approach which in my view is totally unjustified. It is worth repeating what Lord Millett NPJ said in the Court of Final Appeal:
‘......the authority of the plaintiffs to represent the Heung was a matter of the Heung's internal administration and had nothing to do with the defendant. It was entitled to challenge their authority to represent the Heung, but its only legitimate interest in doing so was to ensure that it was not exposed to the risk of being made the subject of a second claim. It was entitled to be protected against this risk; but the proper way to protect it was not to enquire into the propriety of the plaintiffs' appointment, which was a matter between the plaintiffs and the Heung, still less to strike out the proceedings, but to make an appropriate representation order.’ ”
7.根據CLP Power Hong Kong Limited v. Commissioner of Rating and Valuation, LDRA 536/1999的裁決，覆核分兩階段進行。基於土地審裁署條例第11A(1)及(3)條，首先法庭就雙方的書面陳述決定是否會覆核，只有法庭認為應會覆核的申請，才會進入第二階段，就覆核申請根據第11A(4) 條訂明的程序進行聆訊。本席認為答辯人的覆 核沒有理據，本席在第一階段撤銷他的申請。