THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF IGLOO RESIDENCE 訴 陳子東經營日木數碼聯網站

DCCJ 322/2006

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事司法管轄權

案件編號2006年第322號

------------

------------

判案理由書

1. 本聆訊是本案原告人根據區域法院條例第14號命令在簡易判決下提出的申請。

2. 本案原告人是香港跑馬地山光道1A業主立案法團(下稱“法團”)，被告人是意廬小築面向山光道地下連接一樓樓梯通道(下稱“該通道”)的使用者。

3. 法團指該通道是大厦的公用部份，被告人非法佔用作為商店，因此對被告人申請以下濟助:

(1) An order for possession of the portion of land adjacent to Shop F on the Ground Floor of Igloo Residence now known as Shop G on the Ground Floor of Igloo Residence (“the said land”);

(2) An injunction order restraining the Defendant whether by   himself or by his servant or agents or otherwise howsoever from trespassing on the said land or any part thereof;

(3) Damages for trespass to be accessed;

(4) Interest; and

(5) Costs.

4. 被告人在抗辯書中有三點抗辯理由:

抗辯理由一:原告人須指出被告人在那年那月那日開始霸佔該通道，因被告人有機會可能已“逆權佔有”該通道。

抗辯理由二: 大廈圖則顯示該通道只可通往一樓獨立寫字樓，因此該通道並非公用部份。

抗辯理由三: 被告人租用該通道時，該通道巳被大業主改建。

5. 在反對誓章中被告加上抗辯理由四: 指該通道僭建物是前一手

業主或兩位大業主或在大厦建築時由建築商改建或僭建，因此原告人不應誣告被告人。

有關第14號命令簡易判決的法律:

6. Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2006 Vol.1,第14/4/9段寫:

“The defendant must show that there are triable issues. He has to satisfy the court that he has a ‘real or bona fide defence.’ If he makes an allegation, it must be credible or believable in the light of the evidence placed before the court.”

7. 有關抗辯理由一，被告人在作供時承認自己是該通道的租用人，因此並無“逆權佔有”的行為。

8. 有關辯理由二，該通道是否大厦的公用部份並非取決在該通道通往何處，而是取決於大厦公契上的定義。意廬小築的公契第2段寫:

“Each of the parties hereto and his licensees shall in common with his co-owners of the whole of the said premises and their licensees have access to and be entitled to use the entrance-hall staircases and landings the common passages the common spaces and the lifts (if any) of and in the said building for all purposes connected with the proper use and enjoyment of the part or unit in the said building of which he is entitled to the exclusive use occupation and enjoyment and for the purpose of ingress to and egress from such part or unit.”

9. 因此公契訂明大厦所有 “entrance-hall staircases and landings the common passages the common spaces and the lifts (if any)”都是公用部份。

10. 在原告証人Szeto Ho Kwong的誓章的第二付件是屋宇署的建築圖則及公契付圖的副本。在公契付圖中該通道清楚地寫上 “STAIRCASE” 及 “RIGHT OF WAY”。在建築圖則可清楚看到該通道正是通道(entrance-hall)，樓梯(staircase)及樓梯平台(landing)。因此根據大厦公契上的定義，該通道確實是大厦的公用部份。

11. 有關抗辯理由三及四，原告人没有就僭建對被告人作出申索。

本申索只要求被告人交還該通道的管有權，因此第三及四抗辯理由對被告人毫無幫助。

判令:

12.  因被告人不能提出任何在法律上可成立的抗辯理由，本席判令原告人可得到申請濟助一，二及三。濟助三作出修改，在 “Damages” 後加上 “and interest”。

13. 被告人須支付原告人在本案及本申請的訟費，包括已保留的訟費, 連大律師證書。如雙方未能就訟費金額達成協議, 則交法庭評定。