呂漢光 訴 簡玉英

LDPE 802 OF 2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

申請編號2002年LDPE第802號

______________

判 決 書

______________

1. 2002年8月13日，申請人在土地審裁處（“審裁處”）提出向答辯人追租及收回處所（尖沙咀金巴利街22號地下樓梯口）的申 請，因為答辯人由2002年3月1日起未有繳交處所的租金。2002年 9月13日，在無反對的情況下，審裁處的署理副司法常務官判令申請人的申請得直。

2． 2002年11月28日，擬答辯人提出以下的申請 ：

"1. The Intended Co-Respondent Tam Muk Hing be joined as Co-Respondent in this action.

2. There be a stay of execution of the order for possession of the subject premises known as the stair entrance on Ground Floor, No. 22 Kimberley Street, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

3. There be a stay of proceeding of this action in respect of the Co-Respondent pending final determination of the High Court Action No. 1428 of 2002."

3． 在支持申請的誓章，Tam Muk Hing作出以下的陳述 ：

'1. I am the Third Party herein. On or about 17th October 2002, a Notice to Occupiers pursuant to a Writ of Possession at the stair entrance on Ground Floor, No. 22 Kimberley Street, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon. I am now seeking to apply for a stay of execution of the said Order.

2. My son, Leung Siu Man, had been running a business of plumbing and electric works at the said address which was a common area of a residential block since the late sixties. ............

3. In 1970, my son applied for a business registration certificate under the label of 長虹水電. ........................

4. There were times I had been assisting my son in running the said business.

5. During the years, none of the owners in the said residential block ever queried our right in running our livelihood at the said address nor any of them ever asked either of us for any rent or payment of any kind for occupying the said address.

6. Indeed, both my son and I have been treating the said address as if it is our property. .......................

7. Sadly my son passed away in the early nineties. And I have been selling flowers at the said address since. ......................

8. In mid-1992, I was through my son-in-law, Leung Hung Kan, acquainted with Ng Kam Wah who was a plumber. Ng begged me whether he could utilize the said address as a contact point since he did not have a fixed abode for his business. I sympathized with his plight so I let Ng install a telephone line at the said address.

9. Ng also changed the iron grille because he could not withstand the wear and tear of the said address.

10. Later, Ng's wife, Kan Yuk Ying joined me in selling flowers at the said address for a period of five years. Ng's sister, Ng Lin Ho also came along to assist in the floral business.

11. Soon after Ng Lin Ho's arrival, Kan Yuk Ying left the said address.

12. At the beginning of this year, Ng Lin Ho was arrested by police for breaching the terms of stay in Hong Kong. She was not supposed to work in the territory since she was holding a Macau travel permit.

13. Ng Lin Ho was bailed out afterwards and she told me it was Kan Yuk Ying who tipped off the police which led to her arrest. She said she paid Kan Yuk Ying a total sum of HK$30,000 in return of her taking over the floral business at the said address.

14. On or about the 6th of March 2002, Ng Lin Ho left behind all the items including unpaid floral deliveries for me to handle. And I just carried on with the floral business as usual.

15. I have absolutely no idea of the alleged leasing of the said address. It is just ludicrous that Lui Hon Kwong could have rented my place to Kan Yuk Ying. I suspect it is no more an attempt to misappropriate land blatantly belonging to me.

16. Both Lui Hon Kwong and Kan Yuk Ying also commenced injunctive proceedings against me in the Court of First Instance (HCA 1428/2002). A copy of the Writ of Summons is now produced hereto and marked exhibit "TMH-6"

17. In the circumstance, I will humbly pray for an order that the execution of the Writ of Possession be stayed pending the resolution of the High Court proceedings.'

4． 2002年11月5日，擬答辯人在高等法院原訟庭呈交HCA 1428/2002一案的答辯書及反申索書。在反申索書中，擬答辯人要求法庭對呂漢光及其他4名被告頒佈以下的命令 ：

"1. (1) A declaration that: -

(i) by virtue of Section 7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 347, each and every Defendant has lost the right to bring any action to recover the Premises; and

(ii) by virtue of Section 17 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap. 347, each and every Defendant's title to the Premises has been extinguished and the Plaintiff has acquired all the right, title and interest including the right to the sole and exclusive physical possession and occupation of and in the Premises.

(2) An Order that: -

(iii) all the estate, right, title benefit and interest in the Premises be vested in the Plaintiff;

(iv) the name of the Plaintiff be entered in the register kept in the Land Registry as the registered owner of the Premises."

5． 第一項申請

有關第一項申請，本席需要考慮《土地審裁處規則》第11條的條文。第11條有以下的規則 ：

“在法律程序的任何階段，審裁處可應某一方的申請或在無人提出申請的情況下，將任何人的名字或名稱加入或替代任何一方，或自任何一方的名單中剔除。”

5.1 如果擬答辯人是本案另一名答辯人，審裁處對於申請人與擬答辯人之事是否有司法管轄權？對於收回租賃處所管有權的申請，《土地審裁處條例》第8(7)及(8)條授予審裁處司法管轄權。擬答辯人提出第一項申請的依據是 ：在高等法院一宗訟案正在進行中，而在該訟案內她提出逆權佔有的申請，但這並不是《土地審裁處條例》第8(7)及(8)條所涵蓋的有關業主與租客的事宜，故此審裁處對第一項申請提述的事宜並無司法管轄權，既然如此，本席不應批准第一項申請。

5.2 《土地審裁處條例》第8(9)條是不適用於擬答辯人的申請。第8(9)條有以下的條文 ：

“在行使其司法管轄權時，審裁處在授予衡平法或普通法的補救及濟助方面所具有的司法管轄權，與原訟法庭所具有者相同。”

本席已拒絕擬答辯人的第一項申請，所以這並不是審裁處“行使其司法管轄權時”的情況，因而第8(9)條是不適用於擬答辯人的申請。

5.3 擬答辯人提出Yu Wing-kan v. Lau Shuk-lan [1990] 2 HKLR 582一案以支持其申請。該案的擬答辯人自稱為該案處所的分租客，而基於這理由她提出加入為答辯人的申請，這是有別於擬答辯人在本案提出的申請的事實，因此該案對她並無幫助。

6． 第二項申請

第二項申請是按《高等法院規則》第45號命令第11條提出 的。第11條有以下的規定 ：

“在不損害第47號命令第1條規則的原則下，凡有任何 判決或命令針對任何一方作出，該一方可以該判決或命令的日期後所發生的任何事宜為理由，向法庭申請擱置執行該判決或命令或申請其他濟助，而法庭可藉命令批予濟助，並可施加其認為公正的條款。”

（底線後加）

6.1 藉第11條提起的申請只可由“判決或命令針對”的一方作 出。擬答辯人並不是LDPE 802/2002案件的一方。該案的勝訴令是針對答辯人，而不是針對擬答辯人作出的，故此她無權按第11條提出第二項的申請。

7. 第三項申請

本席既已拒絕擬答辯人加入為答辯人的申請，所以本案並不涉及擬答辯人，因此並不存在第三項申請所提述暫緩程序的問題。

8． 基於上述的理由，本席撤銷擬答辯人所有的申請。

9． 訟費

申請人沒有申請訟費的要求，故此擬答辯人無需向他支付任何訟費。

9.1 答辯人要求擬答辯人支付800元訟費。代表擬答辯人的大律師對此款額並無爭議，故此擬答辯人須於28天內支付答辯人800元作為本傳票申請的訟費。