The Incorporated Owners Of Blocks F1 To F7 of Pearl Island Holiday Flats v. Fullwill Property Management Ltd.

LDBM 273 OF 2000

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2000年第273號

______________

判 決 書

______________

1． 2002年6月21日，申請人提出以下的傳票申請:-

"1. The Respondent and the Director of the Respondent Chung Chi Wai Christina and Au Cham Fan do comply with the order made by His Honour Judge Chow on 15th March 2002;

2. Unless the said order is complied with within 14 days, the Respondent do file and serve the non-delivered bank stubs as listed in exhibit "CCM-3" of the 3rd affirmation of Mr. Chan Chung Mao filed on 13th November 2002.

3. In breach of the above said order, penal notice to be endorsed with this order and personal service of this order be dispensed with;

4. Any such order as the court think fit; and

5. Costs of and occasioned by this application be paid by the Respondent."

第2項申請的年份“2002”應為“2001”。

2. 背景

2002年3月15日，本席採納與訟雙方同意的下述命令作為本庭的命令（“3月15日命令”）:-

"1. The Respondent do file and serve a affidavit within 21 days in respect of those non-delivered bank stubs as listed in exhibit 'CCM-3' of the 3rd affirmation of Mr. Chan Chung Mao, filed on 13th November 2002.

2. The Applicant do file and serve a affidavit in reply 7 days thereafter.

3. Parties at liberty to restore.

4. Cost reserved."

2.1 2001年8月28日，主審本案的林法官在判案書中頒佈4個命令。其中第2個命令是與本傳票申請有關:-

"2. The Respondent do deliver to the Applicant all cheque stubs and pay-in-slips evidencing withdrawal and payment in the said Hang Sang Bank Account No. 267-185890-018 from February 1997 to June 2000 insofar as these documents related to the control, management and administration of the Estate."

2.2 申請人的管理委員會的委員Chan Chung Mao在他的第三份誓章（於2001年11月13日存檔於法庭）述明申請人於2001年10月31日接獲答辯人交付的“copy cheque stubs, pay-in-slips and bank statements”。他說 ：‘We discovered that many of the cheque stubs and pay-in-slips as required in the paragraph (2) of the Order of Judge Lam made on 28th August 2001 has not been produced. My solicitor has compared the list with the bank statement and prepared a list of non-delivery bank stubs. The non-delivery stubs are now produced and shown to me marked exhibit "CCM-3"..............’

3. 第一項申請

就這傳票申請，申請人並非是要求土地審裁處（“審裁處”）強制執行3月15日命令。該命令的內容並無含有制裁的成份，故此在答辯人沒有遵守該命令的情況下，申請人缺乏要求審裁處對答辯人作出制裁的基礎，但答辯人違抗命令的事實是可以作為申請“unless order”的依據，而申請人事實上在傳票的第二段亦已提出這項申請。

3.1 3月15日命令是針對答辯人而發出的。須要遵守該命令的一方是答辯人，而不是答辯人的董事Chung Chi Wai Christina與Au Cham Fan，故此該命令對上述二人並不適用。申請人並無法理的基礎可以作出這項申請。申請人並非要求強制執行3月15日命令，故此在此階 段，答辯人的董事不應被牽涉在本案的法律程序之內。

3.2 申請人要求本席下令答辯人遵守3月15日命令。該命令既已被頒佈，本席無須再次頒佈該命令。

4． 第二項申請

答辯人反對是項申請。它的董事Chung Chi Wai Christina在誓章說:-

"6. The affidavit ordered to be filed by the said Order was intended to set out evidence of the Respondent to be used at the adjudication hearing. The Respondent was, in effect, granted leave to file affidavit evidence by the said Order. The Respondent should be at liberty to decide whether it is necessary to file any affidavit evidence."

4.1 3月15日命令是與訟雙方同意之下由本庭頒佈該命令的，故此本席不知道雙方達成協議的過程；本席不知道是否答辯人要求本席給 予向法庭存檔以及送達誓章的許可。如果這是答辯人的要求，3月 15日的第1項命令應以“Leave to the Respondent to file and serve an affidavit within 21 days ........”顯示出來，而不是以現在的方式表達這協議的內容。基於這原因，答辯人的抗辯理由不能成立。

4.2 3月15日命令是否一個含有強制性的命令？關鍵之點在於命令中的文字，即“do file and serve”是否含有強制性的成份。“Hong Kong Civil Procedure”（2002年版第1冊）的第43頁有以下的說明:-

'2. The common form of peremptory order known as an "unless" order should prescribe the period within which an act is to be done, failing which the ordered consequences will follow. These orders fall into two categories:

(a) where the party ordered is not present/represented in which case the wording shall be -

"unless within 14 days of the service of this order the defendant [serves his list of documents the defence be struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff with costs.]"

or (b) where the party ordered is present/represented, or if a consent order is made, in which case the wording should be -

"unless by [4 p.m. on Thursday, 1st December 1988] ... etc. as above."

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

3. The other form of peremptory order in common use does not carry within its wording the sanction for disobedience, hence:

"It is ordered that [defendant] do within [14] days of service of this order 'or' do by [4 p.m. on Thursday, 1st December 1988] serve his list of documents on the plaintiff."

An order of this nature is only preliminary to an "unless" order and on disobedience a supplementary order in "unless" form, setting out the sanction, should be obtained. Until then the earlier order cannot be enforced.'

（原文無底線）

3月15日命令與上文以底線顯示的命令在性質上並無不同，既然該命令是“peremptory order”（強制命令）的一種形式，則3月15日命令當然亦是一個強制命令。答辯人違反3月15日命令，申請人當然有權藉此作為申請“unless”命令的根據。

4.3 Chung Chi Wai Christine在她的誓章指稱“the Respondent should not be required to serve the said non-delivered bank stubs on the Applicant unless an order is made to that effect upon the adjudication hearing.”林法官的第2項命令就是要答辯人交出所有與屋邨的管理有關的Hang Seng Bank Account No. 267-185890-018的支票存根及銀行存款單據；在判案書的第47段，林法官說:-

"Whilst the burden is on the Applicant to show that these bank statement related to the management of the Estate, the evidential burden is on the Respondent to show that they contained entries relating to other transactions in view of the fact that they accepted that at least some entries related to the management of the Estate ...."

（原文無底線）

本席頒佈3月15日命令的目的是給予答辯人就有關的文件的管有以及它們與屋苑的管理的關連一個解釋的機會。如果它對此採取緘默的立場（即不遵守3月15日命令），則在審訊時，法庭在正常的情形下不會容許它改變該立場。如果在審訊時它維持緘默的立場，則它不能履行判案書第47段所指的“evidential burden”的舉証責任；故此，在正常情況下，法庭在審裁後很大可能下令答辯人交出所有未交的支票存根以及其它有關文件。

4.4 如果答辯人決定在審訊時作出上述的解釋，為甚麼它不可以在審訊前遵守3月15日命令？因此，如果答辯人拒絕遵守“unless”的命 令，其結果就是會受到制裁，而適當的制裁就是包含在第二項申請的頒令之內。

5. 第三項申請

第三項申請所指的“above said order”明顯是指第二項的 “unless order”，而不會是第一段所指的3月15日命令。

5.1 “Penal notice”是涉及因犯藐視法庭罪而被交付羈押的法律程序。雖然答辯人沒有遵守3月15日命令，但這不等於它會不遵守“unless order”的命令，在沒有事實的基礎下，因此本席認為本庭不應頒佈有關“penal notice”的申請。

5.2 申請人提出“personal service of the order be dispensed with”的要求。本席既已裁定答辯人的董事在現階段不應被牽涉案中，故此根本上不存在“personal service”的問題，因此這項申請是不恰當的。

6． 命令

本席拒絕第一項及第三項的申請，但批准第二項的申請。

7． 訟費

申請人的第二項申請成功，但第一及第三項申請失敗。第二項申請與第一及第三項申請所佔用審訊的時間相若，故此本席下令與訟 雙方各自負責本傳票的訟費。