Ease Gold Development Ltd. v. Secretary For Transport

香港特別行政區土地審裁處

申請編號1999年LDMR第13宗

______________________

判 決 書

_______________________

1. 在正審之前，本席需要裁決申請人是否道路（工程、使用及補償）條例附表第II部份第2項所規定的對有關土地擁有可獲補償權益的人。本席的裁決，是基於訴訟雙方下列同意的事實：

"1. (a)	The Land forms part and parcel of the Remaining Portion of Lot No. 214 and the Remaining Portion of Lot No. 215 both in Demarcation District No. 103, Yuen Long, New Territories ("the Properties").
(b)	Since 1981, Lin Chen Pao Yeh, Lin Chang Su-O, Chien Lyu Min Yue and Lee Pi Yin have been the co-owners of the Properties under a Conveyance on Sale registered by Memorial No. 247216 ("the Co-Owners").
2. (a)	Pursuant to the power delegated from the then Governor, the Principal Government Land Agent has made an order under section 15(1) of the Ordinance directing that a right of temporary occupation for a period of 36 months over the Land ("the said right").
(b)	It was prescribed in Government Notice 3197 gazetted on 17 August 1995 ("the Notice") that the said right should be created in favour of the Government upon expiry of the Notice for a period of three months.
(c)	It was further prescribed that any person having any compensatable interest under the Ordinance might serve a written claim upon the Respondent before the expiration of one year from the date on which the said right was created.
(d)	The Notice had expired on 16 November 1995 and the said right was created on 17 November 1995.
(e)	On 15 November 1996, the Co-Owners through Vigers Hong Kong Ltd. submitted a written claim for the sum of HK$101,300.
3. (a)	By an Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated 4 September 1997, the Co-Owners agreed to sell and the Applicant agreed to purchase the Properties subject to and with the benefit of the said right.
(b)	The sale and purchase of the Properties was completed on 6 September 1997 by way of an Assignment registered by Memorial No. 786196.
4. (a)	The Co-Owners' written claim was acceptable to the Respondent and the sum of HK$101,300 plus interest was offered to the Co-Owners subject to the terms as more particularly described in a 'without prejudice' letter dated 3 October 1997 from the District Lands Office, Yuen Long. The Co-Owners did not pursue their claims further after the assignment and did not accept the offer.
(b)	By a letter dated 28 October 1997, Vincent T K Cheung, Yap & Co. represented the Applicant to request an extension for 28 days to consider such offer.
(c)	By a letter dated 28 December 1997, Vincent T K Cheung, Yap & Co. purported to reject the offer.
5. (a)	The Applicant appointed Fotton Surveyors Ltd. to act on their behalf and by a letter dated 2 November 1998, Fotton Surveyors Ltd. purported to claim a sum of HK$14,300,000 plus interest and professional fee.
(b)	The receipt of the purported claim was acknowledged by a letter dated 13 November 1998 from the District Lands Office, Yuen Long."

2. 本案的關鍵是：當有關的物業買賣在1997年9月6日完成之時，上述4名共同業主是否已將他們對該土地擁有可獲補償的權益轉讓予申請人。1997年9月6日的買賣契列明該物業的出售，是與政府暫時佔用施工區內的土地的“權利”與“利益”一起轉讓的。有關此點，買賣契的條款是"......AND SUBJECT TO AND WITH THE BENEFIT OF THE Government's Rights of Temporary Occupation of part of the Property under and by virtue of Government Notice 3197 dated 17th August 1995......"。這條款與9月4日買賣合約附表2第(2)項（“第(2)項”）的內容，是一致的。第(2)項的內容如下：

'Particularly, the Property is sold subject to and with the benefit of the Government's Rights of Temporary Occupation of part of the Property under and by virtue of Government Notice 3197 dated 17th August 1995 for a period of 36 calendar months commencing from 17th November 1995 ("the Temporary Occupation").'

3. 答辯人辯稱第(2)項的內容並沒有提及申索補償的權利(the right to claim compensation)，但第(2)項有述及“with the benefit”數字。這數字的意思是“附有或附帶利益”。無可置疑，就該土地而言，政府的“權利”(rights)就是暫時佔用該土地；相對而言，對該土地的業主來說，他們的“利益”(benefit)，也就是政府須負的責任；政府須依法對他們付出補償。按照第3197號公告所示，政府的權利如下：

“首席政府地政監督業已根據該條例第15(2)條，指令通知期為三個月，由本公告張貼於上述土地或其附近的日期起計。期限屆滿後，可依據條例第15(4)條，為政府制定上述佔用權，以便進行上述工程或附屬工程，或供該等工程使用。”

4. 根據此公告，政府要負的責任如下：

“凡根據該條例而可獲補償的人士，可在制定上述佔用權日期起計1年內，向運輸司送達以書面提出的補償要求。”

5. 如果被佔用土地的業主根據道路（工程、使用及補償）條例向政府提出補索償的要求，政府須依法作出補償，這是它的責任，作為佔用該土地應付的代價；反過來說，這也是有關的業主因土地被佔用而獲得的補償，也即是他們的利益("benefit")所在。

6. 前述的4名共同業主已於1996年11月15日向政府作出索償的要求。申請人亦在1997年9月4日的買賣合約清楚地提及此點。合約的第27條的第一句是：

"Notwithstanding anything herein contained, the Purchaser hereby acknowledges that the Vendor has submitted and in the progress of pursuing the written claim for compensations in respect of the Temporary Occupation under the Roads (Works, Use and Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 370) as more particularly referred to in paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule."

7. 申請人是以16萬港元的代價向4位共同業主購得他們在此宗索償的權利，而此4名共同業主亦同意申請人有權繼續追討此索償。第27條的下列部份內容顯示此點：

"The Purchaser hereby agrees to pay to the vendor a sum of H.K.$160,000.00 on completion of the said and purchase for the settlement of the Purchaser interest in the said claim. The Vendor hereby agrees that the Purchaser shall be entitled to pursue the written claim at its own costs and expenses in the manner as the Purchaser or representative of the Purchaser shall think fit after the completion of the sale and purchaser herein."

8. 答辯人辯稱第（2）項並沒有提及有關申索賠償的權利(the right to claim compensation)，但本席認為祇要買賣雙方能夠清楚地表示申請人是以16萬元向4名共同業主購入該權利，那便足夠。

9. 當第（2）項與第27條，以及政府公告3197被一併考慮時，第（2）項與第27條所提及的“利益”("benefit")就是按照公告3197向政府申索的權利，而這"benefit"亦即是買賣契約所指的"benefit"。

10. 答辯人說跟據第27條，申請人同意及確認“放棄”("waive")屬於4位共同業主以書面申索追討賠償的權利。第27條內有關的部份是：

"The Purchaser also hereby further agrees and confirms to waive its right for any compensation, monetary or otherwise, in respect of the said written claim and shall not hold the vendor, in any respect, liable for any loss as damages sustained by the Purchaser (if any) in relation to the said written claim by the Vendor thereto."

11. 這裏的“放棄”("waive")一詞，明顯是指申請人放棄向4位共同業主追討賠償的權利。這句子的目的與上下文是一貫的。上文規定申請人在買賣完成之前就4位共同業主向政府提出的書面申索在形式、內容、程序或步驟不可提出異議或反對，其後就明文規定申請人放棄向他們追討賠償的權利，目的都在於保障4位共同業主的利益。上文有關的內容如下：

"The Purchaser shall not raise any objection in respect of the form and substances of the written claim and/or the procedure(s) or proceeding(s) in respect of the written claim submitted and/or pursued by the Vendor on or before completion of the sale and purchase herein. ...... The Purchaser hereby declares and confirms that the Purchaser shall not raise any objection or requisition as to the manner and/or procedure of such claim by the Vendor on or before completion."

12. 很明顯，申請人所放棄追討的索償權利，是針對4位共同業主而言。這索償必定是由於申請人因遭受在買賣合約完成之前的書面的索償所遭受的損失而引致的。如果申請人所放棄追討的，是針對政府的索償權利，第27條的意思便會全部被扭曲，而這亦與 "The vendor hereby agrees that the Purchaser shall be entitled to pursue the written claim at its own costs and expenses in the manner as the Purchaser or representative of the Purchaser shall think fit after the completion of the sale and purchase herein" 一句的意思相違。如果申請人放棄了追討政府的賠償，它為何要繼續追討該賠償？它為何須要給予4名共同業主16萬元？

13. 祇要符合《法律修訂及改革（綜合）條例》（第23章）第9條的規定，4位共同業主便可將向政府索償的權利轉讓予申請人。第9條有關的規定如下：

“任何債項或其他的法律據法權產的絕對轉讓，如由轉讓人藉親筆簽署以書面形式作出（其意並非是只以押記形式作出），並已就該項絕對轉讓向轉讓人本可有權向其收取或申索該等債項或據法權產的債務人，受託人或其他人，給予明確的書面通知，則該等絕對轉讓須在法律上具有效力並須當作為在法律上具有效力（但須受假若並無制定本條、本條例第11條及《物業轉易及財產條例》（第219章）第25及49條時，所有本可享有優先於承讓人的權利的衡平法上的權益所規限）將該等債項或據法權產的法律權利、所有法律或其他的補救方法和確認其妥為清償的權力，由該通知的日期起轉移和轉讓而無需轉讓人的贊同：”

14. 1997年9月6日的買賣契約雖然是有關物業的轉讓，但這物業的轉讓是連帶有關土地對政府的索償的權利一起轉讓的。本席完全不同意答辯人的說法："There is no written assignment of the right but merely an assignment of the Property." 轉讓契內的條款 "AND SUBJECT TO AND WITH THE BENEFIT OF the Government's Rights of Temporary Occupation of part of the Property under as by virtue of Government Notice 3197 dated 17th August 1995 ......" 清楚地顯示對政府的申索補償的權利是與物業一起轉讓的。答辯人說上述的詞彙與轉讓契內有關大廈公契的相同用字的性質並無分別，但大廈公契的權利與義務是有關大廈公用地方的權利與義務，與本案因政府佔用私人地方而須作出金錢賠償的性質不同。

15. 1997年12月28日，申請人的律師以書面通知元朗地政處上述政府的賠償應付予申請人，因申請人已取替代4位共同業主的地位。該信的有關內容如後：

"We also take this opportunity to confirm that all compensation payable for the temporary right of occupation created by the Government should be paid to our client instead of predecessor-in-title namely, Lin Chen Pao Yeh, Lin Chang Su O, Chien Lyn Min Yue and Lee Pi Yin with reference to Agreement for sale and Purchaser made between the predecessor-in-title and our client date 4.9.1997. Pursuant to Clause 27 of the Agreement, our client steps into the shoes of the predecessor-in-title in claiming for damages arising under Cap. 370 in respect of the above property, copy of the Agreement is enclosed herewith for your reference."

16. 雖然信內祇提到買賣合約，但該買賣已於買賣合約簽署後不久便成交，而在1997年10月28日，申請人的律師在它致元朗地政處的函件中，已向它知會申請人是物業的註冊業主，而該信亦附有最新的田土廳註冊登記以証明此點。由此可知申請人已通知地政處有關申索補償權利轉讓之事，故此申請人

17. 已符合上述第9條的規定，故此，本席裁決申請人是對有關土地擁有可獲補償權益的人。