羅萬 訴 羅寶怡

LA/M/01386/2003（B61）

DCCJ 2154/2004

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事訴訟2004年第2154號

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

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

判案書

1.  原告人是被告人的父親，他的申請是要求被告人歸還$241,000的欠款。

原告人的証供

2.  2000年8月15日，被告人要求他借出$241,000，她承諾在他提出要求時她會還款。在同日，他從他本人以及Yiu Kuen（在2000年8月11日逝世）在交通銀行的聯名戶口（027-568-1-001333-2）（“聯名戶口”）以轉賬方式把$241,000存入被告人的銀行戶口。

3.  2002年10月27日，原告人在被告人的處所居住。在當日，被告人要求他離開她的處所，返回他在東頭邨他原來的處所居住。當時他的健康正走下坡，他要求她還款，以便作為生活費及醫藥費。被告人於該日開出一張面值$241,000，日期為2002年12月31日的期票（抬頭人為被告人的兒子羅成就），並把它交給羅成就。於同日，他離開被告人的處所，並返回東頭邨的處所居住。萁後該張支票不能兌現。

被告人的証供

4.  有關2000年8月15日之事，在她的証人陳述書的第23段，被告人說：-

‘

23.

Also on 15th August 2000, my father went to the Bank of Communications with me to withdraw the deposits in my mother’s account No. 027-568-1-0013332 maintained in the joint names of my mother any my father.  My mother’s said account had a balance of around HK$241,019.08, which was the sum accumulated by my mother from the moneys paid by me to her during the past years.  In accordance with the late wish of my mother mentioned above, my father transferred a sum of HK$241,000.00 from the said account to my account in Bank of Communications to effect the devise from my mother.  This sum did not belong to my father at all, though he could operate the said account as the surviving joint account holder.’

5.  就有關2002年10月27日之事，在她的証人陳述書，她作出以下的陳述：-

‘	40.	My father insisted that he would not leave the Baycrest flat unless “removal compensation” was paid to him by me….. he still said that he would not leave, unless I paid him a sum of HK$100,000.00 plus a sum equivalent to the amount previously transferred from my mother’s account to me upon my mother’s death.  I did not agree to his claim for compensation from me……….
		…………………………..
	45.	Knowing that we rejected this suggestion and our firm position on refusing any kind of payment to father in exchange for his moving out, fifth brother then proposed that the post-dated cheque be drawn in his favour instead.  He repeated that the cheque was only intended for showing to father and he promised that the cheque would not be presented for payment by him upon maturity.
	46.	With much reluctance, I drew a post-dated cheque in favour of fifth brother.  About the amount to be stated in the cheque, since no exact figure was mentioned by father, I then found from my records for the amount previously transferred to me from my mother’s account.  It was then found out that the sum was HK$241,000.00 and I stated this in the cheque.  Fifth brother had no idea about the exact figure at all.  My father also could not remember the exact figure, and he had never asked for my payment of an exact sum of HK$241,000.00.  He always said I should pay to him as compensation HK$100,000.00 together with the sum previously transferred by him to me from my mother’s account.
	47.	After I drew the cheque made payable to fifth brother, I gave it to him. The said cheque was obviously not a payment to father, which fifth brother well knew. He was not acting as the agent of father at all, both in the discussion or in receiving the post-dated cheque from me.’

6.  被告人指稱在聯名戶口的金錢全屬於她的母親。這說法不能成立。Yiu Kuen是於2000年8月11日去世的，在當時原告人約有$800,000（包括$241,000在內）。原告人與姚娟擁有以下的共同銀行戶口：-

Bank	Nature	A/C No.	Date opened	Dated closed
Standard Chartered Bank		406-3-152970-5	12.9.99	15.6.00
Standard Chartered Bank		406-2-162078-5	26.1.93	18.8.00
Standard Chartered Bank		406-3-148370-5	16.11.95	25.11.96
Hang Seng Bank	Savings	260-2-703940		15.6.00
Hang Seng Bank	Savings	351-5-701716		30.12.98
Hang Seng Bank	Savings	351-8-017599		18.9.99
Hang Seng Bank	Time Deposit	260-742119		30.9.02
Hang Seng Bank	Time Deposit	351-664172		2.5.01
Hang Seng Bank	Time Deposit	351-664388		26.2.01
Bank of Communications	Savings	02756810013332
Bank of Communications	Time Deposit	02768004068		10.8.2000
Bank of Communications	Securities	56810004531

7.  交通銀行的“證劵存倉月結單”顯示以下的證劵是原告人與Yiu Kuen共同擁有的：-

Date	Name of Securities	No. of Shares
31.5.2000	Hutchison	2,000
31.5.2000	Hutchison	2,000
30.6.2000	China Unicom	12,000
30.6.2000	China Unicom	12,000
31.7.2000	China Unicom	12,000

8.  當夫婦聯名持有共同戶時，他們是共同持有人。在Pettit v Pettit [1970] A.C. 777一案，法庭說：-

“…if a husband puts property into his wife’s name he intends it to be a gift to her, but if he puts it into joint names, then (in the absence of all other evidence) the presumption is the same as a joint beneficial tenancy… If a wife puts property into their joint names I would myself think that a joint beneficial tenancy was intended, for I can see no other reason for it.”

9.  上述的証據顯示原告人與Yiu Kuen擁有共同的財產，這清楚支持原告人的說法：聯名戶口內的錢是屬於他們二人的。

10.  被告人說Yiu Kuen在世時曾說過她的財產會在她死後給予被告人，但被告人沒有提出任何証據，証明Yiu Kuen曾作出任何具體法律的行為，把她的財產轉贈予她。從法理上說，在Yiu Kuen死後，聯名戶口的錢是屬於原告人的。被告人指$241,000是屬於姚娟的說法，是毫無事實及法理根據的。

11.  如果羅成就曾對她說他不會把支票拿去兌現，被告人的律師應在寫給原告人的前律師的信中提及此點，以及羅成就不履行他的承諾的事。在該信（日期為2003年9月11日）中，被告人的律師說：-

“…………………….  Due to insufficient space in the said former premises, our client invited your client to move back to his own premises at Tung Tau Estate. Your client was angry with the arrangement.  Your client suddenly demanded from our client a sum of HK$241,000.00 which was equivalent to the sum given to our client by the late Madam Yiu Kuen as compensation and a further sum of HK$100,000.00 as removal expenses.  If our client did not pay him the said two sums, he would not move out.  Our client refused. On the night prior to the date of removal, your client still refused to move out from the said new premises.  Your client’s refusal to move out caused considerable duress and pressure upon our client and she had no choice but to issue a post-dated cheque in the sum of HK$241,000.00 made payable to Mr. Law Sing Chau, our client’s 5th brother.  As a result, your client moved out of the said new premises.  Since the said cheque was obtained by duress, our client countermanded the said cheque subsequently.”

12.  被告人在2002年11月27日取消支票，如果羅成就曾對她承諾他不會拿支票去兌現，她理應不會取消該支票。

13.  基於上述的理由，本席不信納被告人及她的証人的証供。本席接納原告人及他的証人的証供。對原告人的申索，被告人並無有效的答辯。本庭裁決，原告人的申索得直。被告人須於14天內向原告人支付$241,000以及其利息，利息由2004年4月27日起計，直至債項清付為止，利率則以終審法院首席法官不時藉命令所決定者計算。

訟費

14.  本席頒下臨時訟費命令：被告人須支付原告人本案的訟費（包括大律師費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由訟費評定官評定。原告人本身的訟費須按法律援助規例評定，如在14天內與訟任何一方不向法庭提出申請，是項命令作實。