SOUTHERN EVER TRADING LTD 訴 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF JOY GARDEN

LDBM 8/2003

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2003年第8號

_______________

判 決 書

________________

1. 答辯人的申請是要求土地審裁處根據高等法院規則第18號命令第19條規則將申請人的申請剔除。

2. 在它的申請通知書，申請人指答辯人違反《建築物管理條例》（“條例”）第18條以及大廈公契第3段的規定；第3段的條文如下：－

"Each undivided 634 part or share in the said premises and the full and exclusive right and privilege to hold use occupy and enjoy each Unit shall be held by the person or persons from time to time entitled thereto subject to and with the benefit of the easements rights privileges and obligations set out in the First Schedule hereto."

3. 申請人指答辯人沒有將Joy Garden第2座的升降機維持在良好合用的狀況，並容許該升降機發出持續及過量的聲音。自2002年6月起，當該升降機在運作時，申請人的兩名董事及股東感到處所的震動；雖經屢次請求，答辯人並無採取補救的行動。

4. 2001年1月10日，環境保護處進行測試並確認該升降機的聲浪水平超過夜間可接受的聲音水平。2002年10月29日，申請人自行聘請的測量師進行聲浪的測試，結果亦是一樣。申請人的申請是：

"An order that the Respondent do forthwith take out remedial work to reduce the noise created by the said Lift below the DNL and to install proper insulator against the vibration caused by the said Lift."

5. 答辯人提出7個理由証明對升降機沒有進行保養或維修工作的指稱不能成立。

5.1 第(1)個理由

"(1) The noise of the Lift was caused by the architectural design of the building, which was built in the 1970s and not as a result of abnormal or improper maintenance of the Lift-

See:

(a) Letter from the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") to Kong Shun Union Management Co. Ltd. dated 29.6.2001.

(b) Letter from Otis to EMSD dated 25.9.2001"

5.1.1 2001年9月26日的信指出第2號升降機所發出之噪音並非是由升降機機件的不正常運作或維修欠妥善所導致，但是信中沒有提及這結論是如何獲得的，該信只指出“可能是由於該大廈原有設計，導致升降機之噪音由機房及井道經牆壁傳入相鄰的住宅內”，但信中所指只是一個可能性而不是一個事實。在2001年9月25日的信中OTIS的經理說，"According to our experience, the cause is possibly due to the architecture of the building constructed at 1970s where the lift machine room is closely adjacent to one or more residence(s), the nearby residents may experience higher noise level." 這信亦只是指出形成噪音的一個可能性，但第(1)個理由卻將可能性變為事實，這是不對的。

5.2 第(2)個理由

"After a joint inspection of the Lift by EMSD and Otis on 1.6.01, upon the instructions of R, Otis conducted an overhaul of the Lift and enhanced the structure of its supporting I-beams whereby the noise level was reduced by around 5-B(A). Short of replacing the Lift with a new one, according to Otis, this is the optimum condition sustainable for a 30-years old lift."

本席不知道這論據如何可以支持答辯人的申請。

5.3 第(3)及第(4)個理由

"(3) In an Owner's Extraordinary General Meeting of Joy Garden held on 6.8.02, 3 options were proposed to resolve the App's complaint regarding the noise level of the Lift, namely, to: (a) suspend the operation of the Lift from 11:30 pm to 6:30 am daily; (b) replace the Lift with a new one; and (c) carry out regular maintenance work to the Lift.

(4) At the meeting, the majority of the owners:-

(a) Voted against the proposals to replace the Lift with a new one due to the substantial expense involved and o suspend the operation of the Lift from 11:30 pm to 6:30 am daily; and

(b) Voted for the third option of carrying maintenance work on the Lift."

5.4 在第(5)點理由，答辯人指出上述的決議對Joy Garden的業主有約束力。

5.5 第(6)及第(7)點理由

'(6) Pursuant to the said resolution, Otis has since carried out:-

(c) Regular maintenance work to the Lift; and

(d) Sound isolation work between 20.8.02 and 22.8.02 to minimize the noise from the Lift.

..................

(7) In the circumstances, even if the App can establish that the Lift created excessive or continuous noise (which is denied), it is submitted that:-

(a) R has carried out all works possible to minimize the alleged noise and fully discharged its duty to maintain the Lift in a stage of good and serviceable condition under s.18(a) of the BMO; and

(b)R could not have "allowed" or "permitted" the lift to create the alleged excessive or continuous noise as it was bound by the resolution passed at the meeting of 6.8.02; and

(c)The App is also bound by the resolution and cannot complain.'

5.5.1 法團會議的決議必須是有效的決議才會具有約束力。根據條例附表3第3(7)段的規定，法團會議通過的決議，必須於會議日期前最少14天送達每名業主，否則無效。

5.5.2 上述業主大會會議記錄的第(六)項是關於大會即場就「是否同意對兩座升降機機房之噪音，同時進行改善維修工程」作出表決，大會通過上述工程的決議。這是有關上述第4個理由(b)節陳述的事實，但整個會議記錄並無(a)節所陳述的表決，故此(a)節所陳述的並非是事實。

5.5.3 會議記錄第(二)(2)項是關於「更換整部電梯」的方案，此方案亦有多數業主表示反對，但大會並無就此事項表決。

5.5.4 會議第(二)項的記錄是：主席並特別報告在會前曾收到第2座6B陳先生之代表律師「孖士打律師行」向本法團出信，要大廈在限期十四天之內維修噪音問題。於是，主席向大會提出三個初步方案。”從“在會前”這3個字來看，上述的3個初步方案似乎並不是包括在原有議程之內，如該3個初步方案是載於議程之內，大會應對每一方案作出表決，但大會祇對其中一個方案（第3個方案）作出表決。

5.5.5 申請人的董事Chan Yu Ying Ian 的誓章的附件是一封代表申請人的律師行（“孖士打律師行”）發給申請人的信，該律師行在信中說，"We are instructed to give you notice (which we hereby do) that, unless you carry out remedial works to reduce the level of the noises of the Lift and the level of vibrations thereof and make good repair ......... within 14 days from the date hereof, our clients shall take appropriate legal proceedings against you ....... without further notice." 這封信的日期是2002年8月5日，而上述法團的大會是在2002年8月6日舉行，因此這封信可能就是會議記錄所指的律師信。如果這是事實，則三個初方案不會是列於議程的決議，以致第3個方案的決議因違反附表3第3(7)段的規定而變為無效的決議。事實究竟是如何，這要待正式審訊時才能確定，在未經審訊下本席不能裁定第3個方案的決議對申請人具有約束力，因此答辯人在第(7)項理由所提出的結論不能作實。

6. 答辯人指申請人作為註冊公司不能提出 "general damages for discomfort, inconvenience or insomnia ......"的申索，但申請人於2003年5月19日已將賠償的申索取消，因此這個理由不能成立。

7. 答辯人提出"No actionable nuisance"的論點，它說 "All subsequent noise measurements of the Lift carried by EPD on 10.8.01, 5.12.01, 14.12.01, 7.3.02 and 11.7.02 showed either that the noise did not exceed the relevant noise limit or was not actionable under the Noise Control Ordinance."申請通知書的第6(c)段指稱在2002年10月29日升降機發出的音量和震動在夜間超越可接受聲音水平；答辯人所指稱的日期都是先於此日，答辯人沒有針對申請通知書第6(c)段的指控作出反應，故此該指控有待審訊而作出裁定。純粹就此點而言，申請人的申請已披露合理的訴因。

8. 條例附表10第1及第2段分別賦予本庭對條例條文以及公契條文的譯義及執行有關的法律程序，因此本庭對本案具有司法管轄權。申請人是處所的業主，因此按條例第45(4)條賦予的權力，申請人可進行附表10指明的法律程序。

9. 答辯人指申請人的申請沒有披露合理的訴因以及必定會失敗之說不能成立。基於上述的理由，本席撤銷答辯人的申請。

訟費

10. 答辯人須支付申請人是次傳票申請的訟費（包括申請人聘用大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額按由法庭按區域法院訟費水平為基準而予以評定。