ING FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD 訴 WHOLE WINNER (EURO-ASIA) INVESTMENT LTD

DCCJ4884/2005

香港特別行區

區域法院

民事訴訟編號2005年第4884宗

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

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

判決書

1. 第二被告人（“被告人”）的上訴申請，是要求推翻Tracy Chan聆案官於2006年2月2日所作出的判令。

2.  原告人的申請是要求三名被告人支付$537,660的款項。

3.  有關原告人的申索，是於2005年10月14日送達予被告人的。三名被告人都沒有在法定時限屆滿前發出擬抗辯通知書，因此法庭在2005年11月9日判決三名被告人須支予原告人$537,660。

4.  2006年2月2日，在聆訊被告人擱置上述判令的申請後，Tracy Chan聆案官撤銷他的申請。

5.  被告人在他的誓章說，

“14. On 14^th Oct 2005, I received the writ of summons dated 3^rd Oct 2005 from Mr. Leung of INGFP and was told legal action from INGFP was stopped for the purpose of negotiation between Whole Winner and INGFP, otherwise, I would react accordingly by 28^th Oct 2005 without delay;

15. On the same day of 14^th Oct 2005, I instantly made a proposal to Mr. Leung of INGFP in return for their early promise of not to take any legal action for the time being;

16. Negotiation continued until 2^nd Nov 2005 when I finally confirmed the fact that, by law, I myself didn’t bear any liabilities for or to Whole Winner and INGFP after I finally and successfully picked up from the solicitor of INGFP a copy of the deed of guarantee, one which was signed on 16^th August 2004 between I myself and Whole Winner;

17. Up to 8^th Nov 2005 from my emails to the solicitor of INGFP, evidence showed that I had no idea or intention to ignore any legal proceedings, if already happened, from INGFP since I was last told by Mr. Leung of INGFP on 14^th Oct 2005 that legal action from INGFP was stopped for the purpose of negotiation between Whole Winner and INGFP;

18. On 8^th Nov 2005, the solicitor of INGFP replied to me by email that they had applied to the court for a default judgment against me on 7^th Nov 2005 but without specifying any particular court case reference.  With that, unfairly, I was not given enough time and had no clue to prepare and respond accordingly within such short period especially under that circumstance since they received the court judgment against me on 9^th Nov 2005;

19. Realizing the possible consequences, I have no reason to deliberately ignore or delay my response to any possible legal action from INGFP.  Besides, I have been keeping in touch with the solicitor of INGFP through emails about any necessary follow-up to the dispute and legal matters after I was last told by INGFP on 14^th Oct 2005 that legal action was stopped for the purpose of negotiation between Whole Winner and INGFP.”

6. 就第18段“without specifying any particular court case reference”的指稱，被告人只要查看他收到的“writ of summons”，他便會知道 “court case reference”。他只要往法院查看這 “court case reference” 的檔案，他便知道本案的進展程度。傳送令狀送達認收書清楚寫明有關抗辯書送交存檔和送達的14天時限，以及其後果：

“如被告人沒有在適當時限內將其抗辯書送交存檔和送達，則原告人可無須發出進一步通知而登錄被告人敗訴的判決。”

原告人根本上無責任要把它提出申請得直的申請通知被告人。

7. 2005年10月17日，原告人的律師致函被告人，信中說，

“If the 2^nd Defendant fulfills his obligations in the letter, the Plaintiff will not enforce the judgment to be applied for and obtained.”

8. 2005年11月7日，原告人向被告人發出以下的電郵：-

“There is no point to argue on the issues and/or merits of the case through correspondence since the legal proceedings are now on-going and, as you have just informed us, you have your own lawyer.  Please note that we have applied to the court for a judgment and you should seek your lawyer’s advice as soon as possible.”

9. 上述的信件及電郵顯示，原告人清楚向被告人表示，它會繼續 進行本案的訴訟。被告人沒有提出它為何不在法定時限內發出擬抗辯通知書的可信理由。

10. 被告人說，他和第一被告人之間，在2004年8月16日達成保証人的協議 (“deed of guarantee”)。該協議在2005年1月15日終止，而原告人已即時被通知該消息。

11. “Deed of Guarantee” 是原告人與被告人達成的契約。該契約的第2條規定：“the Guarantee shall be a continuing security”。 第3條規定：“This Guarantee shall be binding as a continuing security on the Guarantor until the termination of the said Service Agreement between INGFP and the Company but such termination shall not release the Guarantor from this Guarantee in respect of liability actual or contingent undertaken by INGFP or amounts owing or liabilities actual or contingent otherwise incurred by the Company arising out of obligations incurred or commitments or transactions entered into before the said termination”.  有關的服務合約 (“the Servicing Agreement”)  約於2005年7月終止。即使被告人終止他本人與第一被告人的保証人合約，這亦與他與原告人簽訂的“Deed of Guarantee”無關。

12. 被告人說，在2005年5月4日，他被Professional Insurance Brokers Association Limited吊銷保險經紀的註冊。他說，“The 2^nd Defendant was advised by PIBA to cease all insurance activities because it was illegal under the suspension.  …… Realizing the illegality stated in the letter of 4.5.2005 from PIBA, the Plaintiff still illegally and without the 2^nd Defendant’s prior consent, submitted three applications in the name of the 2^nd Defendant to Zurich and Friends Provident on 6^th May and 10^th May 2005 respectively…… In consideration of the seriousness and illegality of the above-mentioned incidents by Plaintiff, the 2^nd Defendant should have immediate rights to be relieved of any liabilities related to the Deed of Guarantee automatically.”

13. 被吊銷經紀牌照的是被告人，而不是原告人；如在沒有牌照的情況下，他繼續進行保險經紀的活動，這會構成非法的行為，但這只是針對被告人，而不是針對原告人，所發出的忠告。

14. 被告人所指的 “three applications” 是保單9979691，9979699及21501189。有關在申索書所列出被告人須向原告人退還的佣金的保單的如下：

15. 保單9975732和9965011與 “three applications” 無關。

16. 被告人沒有指稱，有關的 “3 applications” 的保單，是在他的保險經紀牌照被吊銷後才簽訂的，相反，原告人提出証據，証明有關的保單是在被告人吊銷牌照前簽訂的，因此該些保單不會因被告人的牌照被吊銷而變為無效。原告人把有效的保單提交予Zurich及Friends Provident怎會是非法的行為？再者，被告人提交的文件（6-11, 7-11 of Exhibit A）並無提及該些文件是以被告人的名義提交予Zurich及Friends Provident的。Exhibit A 的6 – 11 的文件是印有原告人及第一被告人的名字。因此，原告人以被告人的名義提交有關的文件予的指稱是毫無根據的。

17. 假設涉及 “three submissions” 是非法的，這亦不會解除被告人作為保証人須負的責任。如有關的保險單變為無效，第一被告人須把已收的佣金退還給原告人，但它沒有這樣做，因此被告人作為它的保証人，須負責替它支付同樣數目的金錢予原告人。

18. 被告人指它與其他被告人負起共同的責任。Personal Guarantee的第9條清楚指出：“This Guarantee shall be treated in all aspects as independent to and separate from other guarantee(s) that may be given to INGFP by any other third party for the sums secured hereunder.  The Guarantor shall be liable to INGFP for whole sums secured hereunder and the liability is not distributed equally between the guarantor and such third party Guarantor(s), notwithstanding any such third party guarantee (if any).  Such third party Guarantor(s), if any, shall not be treated as co-guarantors and no right of contribution shall arise.  If the right of contribution arises notwithstanding the above provision, the Guarantor agrees that he hereby abandons or waives such right.” 被告人的保証義務是獨立的、不會與其他保証人共同分擔的保証義務。

19. 原告人所獲得的是符合常規的判決(“a regular judgment”)，被告人並無任何有效的抗辯理由，因此本庭撤銷他的上訴申請。

訟費

20. 本庭頒下臨時訟費的命令：被告人須支付原告人是次申請的訟費。如與訟雙方未能同意訟費的款額，該款額由法庭評定官評定。如在14天內與訟任何一方不向本庭提出申請，是項命令作實。