榕光社 對 THE VENUE CO LTD

HCSA 28/2018

[2019] HKCFI 866

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

小額錢債審裁處上訴2018年第28號

（原本案件編號：小額錢債審裁處申索2017年第46769號）

____________

____________

判案書

1.  上訴人（「榕光社」）為一間從事老人服務的慈善機構，而答辯人（「The Venue」）為一間公關公司。

2.  The Venue於2016年12月22日為榕光社籌辦了一個慈善籌款晚宴。根據雙方所簽署的英文合約，The Venue需提供以下服務：

(1) 製作、物資及預支所有慈善晚宴的支出；

(2) 邀請不少於14台嘉賓每台12人，及邀請歌唱表演嘉賓；

(3) 安排贊助者；及

(4) 保證榕光社可獲得不少於$100,000捐款；

3.  The Venue的報酬為$80,000固定報酬及非固定報酬，而後者是以受爭議的“sponsors contribute/donation” （「總捐款」）的15% 計算的。

4.  根據雙方同意的案情，由於籌款情況未如理想，雙方將保證的捐款金額由$100,000下調為$60,000，而The Venue所得的報酬亦下調至總捐款的10%。

5.  The Venue找到原為第二被告人的歐陽醫生作為籌款晚宴的贊助人。歐陽醫生作出分別為$38,000及$50,000的捐款，後者以支票方式作出，但該支票被退票。榕光社追討歐陽醫生不果，而律師費$1,500由The Venue 負責。

6.  無爭議的是總收入為$467,564.80（包括歐陽醫生遭退票的$50,000），總支出為$409,275.50。

7.  榕光社認為，應該以收到的捐款為實，因此總捐款需先扣除歐陽醫生被退票的$50,000，才計算The Venue的非固定報酬。若扣去 (a) 歐陽醫生的$50,000，(b) 律師費$1,500，及 (c) 榕光社之前支付The Venue的兩筆款項，榕光社只需支付$3,290.40。

8.  The Venue並不同意扣去退票額，認為榕光社應該支付$53,290.40。由於這金額超越小額錢債審裁處的申索上限，因此The Venue只申索$50,000。

9.  審裁處判決The Venue得直。榕光社不服，在獲得許可後，現提出上訴。

審裁處就事實方面的裁定

10.  書面合約完全沒有提及如何計算總捐款。榕光社的聶主席聲稱曾經與The Venue的許小姐商量過要求計算填補差額是需要以實質捐款為實，及曾與榕光社的執委會討論以實質捐款作計算方法，惟審裁處並不信納。（裁決理由書第19及20段）

11.  當歐陽醫生知道聶主席涉及訴訟的時候，歐陽醫生便將投得的珠寶首飾通過DHL歸還榕光社。而榕光社亦承認首飾仍然在它的一方。因此審裁處認為歐陽醫生是尚欠榕光社而非The Venue $50,000。

12.  審裁處也不相信雙方曾經在晚宴後達成和解方案。

13.  2017年6月9日，榕光社的代表張先生和The Venue的許小姐進行手機通訊，訊息的第7點註明「榕光社答應當收回歐陽醫生的$50,000後，立即全數交回The Venue」。

14.  審裁處不相信雙方藉此短訊達成全盤和解的方案，訊息的第7點亦沒有顯示許女士曾同意過任何事情。訊息不能夠成為修訂合約的部分，亦沒有證據顯示訊息是榕光社執委會通過作實的。從訊息的第7點可見，榕光社欠The Venue HK$50,000，唯一合理解釋是它採納了The Venue的計算方法。（裁決理由書第26-27段）

15.  綜合這些事實方面的裁定，審裁處不接納榕光社的口頭證據或解釋，却採納The Venue的計算方法，因此判The Venue勝訴。

上訴理由

16.  榕光社認為判決理由只是建基於拒絕接納榕光社就事實方面的證據，而沒有進一步以客觀的合理人士的角度詮釋相關條文，因此審裁處明顯地犯了法律觀點上的錯誤。

法律原則

17.  合約條文應如何詮釋乃一法律與事實相混合的問題，而非單純涉及事實的裁決。法庭應該考慮一個合理的人士會如何理解合約雙方所表達的意思：

“… The construction of a document is not a game with words. It is an attempt to discover what a reasonable person would have understood the parties to mean. And this involves having regard, not merely to the individual words they have used, but to the agreement as a whole, the factual and legal background against which it was concluded and the practical objects which it was intended to achieve. Quite often this exercise will lead to the conclusion that although there is no reasonable doubt about what the parties meant, they have not expressed themselves very well. Their language may sometimes be careless and they may have said things which, if taken literally, mean something different from what they obviously intended. In ordinary life people often express themselves infelicitously without leaving any doubt about what they meant. Of course in serious utterances such as legal documents, in which people may be supposed to have chosen their words with care, one does not readily accept that they have used the wrong words. If the ordinary meaning of the words makes sense in relation to the rest of the document and the factual background, then the court will give effect to that language, even though the consequences may appear hard for one side or the other. The court is not privy to the negotiation of the agreement — evidence of such negotiations is inadmissible — and has no way of knowing whether a clause which appears to have an onerous effect was a quid pro quo for some other concession. Or one of the parties may simply have made a bad bargain. The only escape from the language is an action for rectification, in which the previous negotiations can be examined. But the overriding objective in construction is to give effect to what a reasonable person rather than a pedantic lawyer would have understood the parties to mean. Therefore, if in spite of linguistic problems the meaning is clear, it is that meaning which must prevail. (Jumbo King Ltd v Faithful Properties Ltd & ors [1999] 4 HKC 707, 第722頁C)

18.  終審法院亦強調，合約的上文下理（context）是詮釋的鑰匙，法庭需考慮引致相關合約及條款的背景資料:

“We have been referred to the very well-known statement of principle regarding the construction of contracts contained in the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society, to which can be added the judgment also of Lord Hoffmann NPJ in Jumbo King Ltd v Faithful Properties Ltd. What emerges from these cases – and other authorities on contractual interpretation – is the overall importance of context when construing contractual terms. The statements of principle in Investors Compensation Scheme and in Jumbo King refer time and again to the relevant background against which the relevant contract and contractual terms must be viewed. It is in my view not particularly helpful in most cases to refer to the ‘ordinary and natural meaning’ of words because, as very often experience tells us, there can be much debate over exactly what is the ordinary or natural meaning of words. The surer guide to interpretation is context. Here, I would just add that in the area of statutory and constitutional interpretation, it is context that is key; context is the starting point (together with purpose) rather than looking at what may be the natural and ordinary meaning of words.” (Fully Profit (Asia) Ltd. v Secretary for Justice [2013] 6 HKC 374, 第15段)

應用法律原則

19.  審裁處不信納榕光社的證據或解釋，不過表示審裁處未能從中得到相關的背景資料而已，這是完成了確立事實方面的責任。但審裁處仍得在已確立的事實下詮釋相關條文，這是法律方面的責任，而審裁處未有完成。

20.  本席認為，合約的目的及上文下理足以反映總捐款的真實意義。本合約真正的目的是通過The Venue的專業服務，令榕光社得到捐款，而榕光社會根據捐款的數額而給予The Venue非固定報酬。因此未收到的捐款不能被視作已收的捐款。否則，只要The Venue找幾個人開些空頭支票給榕光社，便可賺取非固定報酬，而榕光社卻毫無得益，這是荒謬的，有違辦晚宴的原意。

21.  歐陽醫生的支票抬頭是榕光社，這個做法符合合約的要求。榕光社在獲悉歐陽醫生被退票的情況下，當然可以起訴歐陽醫生。但正如張大律師的陳詞所說，得到一個訴因並不等同於得到捐款，因為榕光社可能要支付訴訟費及承擔訴訟風險，這與通過辦晚宴而得捐款的期望相違背。

22.  再者，榕光社在短訊中答應在收回歐陽醫生的$50,000後，立即全數交回The Venue，這是有條件的付款，而非承認欠款。意思是，若榕光社沒有收到$50,000，當然無需交回The Venue了。

23.  審裁處倚賴電話短訊的內容，而認為榕光社採納了The Venue的計算方法這是對短訊的錯誤理解，而且錯誤地採納與訟一方的主觀理解，而非一個合理人士的客觀理解，作為詮釋總捐款的基礎。

24.  綜合第19-23段，本席認為合約中的 “Sponsors contribute/donation” 是指實收的捐款，並不包括歐陽醫生被退票的$50,000。審裁處犯了上文第16段的錯誤，那是個法律觀點的問題，並不涉及推翻審裁處就事實方面的裁定。

25.  The Venue 在聆訊後呈交書面陳詞來反駁上訴，本席不予考慮。

結論

26.  本席裁定榕光社的上訴得直，推翻審裁處要求榕光社支付The Venue $50,000及利息的裁決。

訟費

27.  由於榕光社並不申請審裁處訴訟的訟費，因此本席不就審裁處的訟費作命令。

28.  就着本上訴，訟費應隨訴訟結果而定，由The Venue支付給榕光社。榕光社的訟費陳述書索取$227,400。本席認為這金額毫不合理，原因是上訴涉及的議題並不複雜，張大律師在申請上訴許可時的陳詞言簡意賅，而他亦務實地在本上訴中重用該陳詞。在本上訴聆訊中需要增加的資料極為有限，而且只涉及兩個著名的案例。故此本上訴的大律師聘用費不應是申請上訴許可的雙倍。本上訴亦無需使用超過20年年資，每小時收費$6,000的律師處理。

29.  榕光社若是慈善機構，更應該小心使用訟費，而不應該使用超出上訴標的事項四倍的訟費。

30.  考慮了整體因素，本席裁定The Venue需支付榕光社$50,000訟費。