CHAN YIP KEUNG AND ANTOTHER 訴 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF BELVEDERE GARDEN PHASE II AND ANOTHER

LDBM 54 OF 2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第54號

______________

判 決 書

______________

1. 本席需要判決的是本庭於2002年8月9日以及9月9日頒佈的判決有關訟費的爭議。

2． 2002年8月9日的裁決是有關兩名申請人針對第一答辯人的下列兩項申請 ：

"(1) A declaration that the 3rd Management Committee has become incapacitated and was defunct since 16th Januray 2002;

(2) A Declaration that all the resolutions purported to have been passed by the 3rd Management Committee in its 24th Meeting held on 7th February 2002 ("the Meeting") were void and of no effect."

3. 第一答辯人反對上述兩項申請。與訟雙方要求本席按雙方同意的事實對上述兩項申請作出判決。本席判決兩名申請人上述兩項申請得直。

4． 勝訴者應得訟費，故此本席判令第一答辯人支付兩名申請人是次審訊的訟費（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，則該款額由法庭審定。

5． 2002年9月9日的裁決是有關兩名申請人針對第一答辯人的以下兩項申請 ：

"(4A) An Order to dissolve the 3rd Management Committee pursuant to section 31 of the Ordinance.

(4B) An Order to appoint an Administrator pursuant to section 31 of the Ordinance
............................"

經審訊後，本席撤銷上述兩項申請。

6. 兩名申請人要求第一答辯人支付訟費，其理由如下 ：

"(1) A would have ended the proceedings on 9.8.02 without the further entering into the 3rd phase but for the Tribunal's expression of concern about the management vacuum. A had nothing to gain from the further proceedings. He did so purely to help avert the management vacuum. It was for the benefit of R1 and all the owners. Even if he has lost, he should not be penalised on costs.

(2) R1 has not really won the 3rd phase. There is still a management vacuum in existence. If R1 had adopted the reasonable proposal suggested by A on 9.8.02 or 12.8.02, the management vacuum could have been avoided.

(3) When exercising the discretion on the question of costs of the 3rd phase, the Tribunal should have regard to the usual costs order made in administration cases:

(a) the practice in Probate Court:

(i) executors proving a will in solemn form in an unsuccessful probate action still have a right to their costs out of the estate : Re Price Williams v. Jenkins (1886) 31 ChD 485.

(b) the similar practice in the Companies Court:

(i) Re Shearing & Loader Ltd. [1991] BCLC 764.

(ii) A dissenting shareholder who provided useful assistance to the court was awarded costs : In re Thomas de la Rue & Co. [1911] 2 Ch. 361."

對第(1)點理由的指稱，即訴訟原可於9.8.02完結，本席不能作出任何事實的裁定。對第(2)點理由所指稱的“reasonable proposal”，本席亦不能作出任何事實的裁定。

7． 本案關鍵之點是，正如本席在2002年9月9日的判案書指出，第一答辯人根本上不應成為訴訟的一方。在2002年8月19日當兩名申請人修訂申請通知書，加入(4A)及(4B)兩項新的申請時，他們並無對第一答辯人的身份作出修改。

8． 本席曾經向兩名申請人的大律師問及他是否需要修改第一答辯人的身份，他說不需要修改。

9． 第一答辯人根本上不應被捲入此項訴訟之中，故此兩名申請人要求訟費的理由不能成立。

10． 本席頒令，兩名申請人須支付第一答辯人是次裁決的訟費（包括第一答辯人聘請大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由法庭審定。