LAU KAM KAU 訴 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FU SHING COURT

LDBM 260/2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第260號

_______________

判 案 書

_______________

1. 申請人是香港柴灣道396號富城閣10字樓H室以及第2、3、12及66號車位的業主；答辯人是富城閣的業主立案法團。申請人的申請是要求答辯人退還給他該4個車位由1996年11月份至2002年6月份款額為21,384元的管理費。

2. 本席須要裁決的是答辯人是否有權向車位的業主徵收車位管理 費。富城大廈的大廈公契（“公契”）第11條是有關管理費的條文，第11條有以下的規定 ：

"11.	Management Expenses
	(a)	Each owner shall be liable for and shall pay to the Managers in respect of each flat the proportion hereinafter mentioned of the costs and expenses incurred for or in connection with the management of the said land and building, its equipment, apparatus and services as hereinbefore defined including the remuneration of any Managers as aforesaid such proportion being payable as hereinafter mentioned.
	(b)	(1)	Each owner shall pay to the Managers in respect of each flat of which he is the owner a monthly service charge as more particularly described in the Second Schedule hereto payable in advance ...... to cover the cost of the following items: -
			(i)	the remuneration of the Managers...........;
			(ii)	premia for insurance effected by the Managers as aforesaid;
			(iii)	the charges payable to the Plumbing Contractors for maintenance and servicing of the water pumps but not major repairs or replacements which are not covered by the service contract;
			(iv)	the charges payable to the Elevator Company for maintenance and service of the lifts but not major repairs or replacements which are not covered by the normal service contract;
			(v)	electricity charges for operating the lifts and for lighting in the common areas and for other apparatus and services in the said building;
			(vi)	water charges except where separately metered for individual flats;
			(vii)	maintenance, repair and servicing of the common areas and facilities but not major repairs thereto;
			(viii)	charges for cleaning the commons areas;
			(ix)	wages for the estate supervisor (if any), caretakers, watchmen; repairmen and other building staff;
			(x)	the cost of garbage and refuse disposal , the wages of cleaners and the cost of cleaning utensils and materials;
			(xi)	sundry items such as the maintenance and replenishment of fire extinguishers, ......
			(xii)	Crown rent and all rates and taxes (if any) which may now or hereafter be assessed charges or imposed on the said land and/or building as a whole.
................................."
（原文無底綫）

3. 1979年，申請人與他的兄弟購入富城閣10字樓H室。1980年8月及11月、1981年3月及1983年5月，他分別購入在地下層（Ground Floor）的第66號、3號、2號及12號車位。約於1989年，申請人的父母告訴他答辯人會對每一車位收取每月20元作為對車位的界綫、路標、指示的髹油及維修之用。因為該些工作已作出以及款額細少，他並不反對繳交該20元的費用。當時他不知道答辯人無權徵收該些費用。其後，於1995年，他的父母告訴他答辯人的管理委員會決定把車位的每月管理費調高至70元，由1995年4月生效。他說管理委員會以下述理由調整管理費 ： -

"(i)	as from April 1995, Fu Shing Court had to pay for the fees for installation of a satellite antenna; and
(ii)	upon considering the monthly management fees collected on car parking spaces of nearly buildings, the increase was reasonable."

申請人不滿意該些理由，因而拒絕繳交調整的車位管理費。他跟著就此事向民政事務處投訴。1995年6月22日，答辯人致信給他，示意會向他採取法律行動。為了避免捲入訴訟，他在1995年7月繳交車位的管理費，但他仍向答辯人索取調高車位管理費的理由。1995年6月26日，答辯人發出召開特別會議的通告，該會議將於1995年7月6日舉行。本席接納他的証 供。

4． 車位是私人擁有的物業，但車位是位於停車場，而停車場是公用地方。大廈公契第11(b)(1)條所指的“a monthly service charge”所涵蓋的項目是否包括停車場的費用在內？停車場是公用地方。公契第11(b)(v)、(vii)、(viii)及(x)條明顯地涵蓋這停車場的費用。按第11(a)條的規定，“each flat”的業主須支付第11(b)(1)條的費用。既然公契第11(b)(1)條已涵蓋停車場的公用地方的管理開支，而該管理費是由所有“flat owner”的業主支 付，答辯人便不能祇針對車位的業主（包括申請人）收取車位管理費。

5． 於1995年答辯人通過一個特別會議，把泊車費調整至70元。公契第16條有以下的規定 ：

"16.	From time to time as occasion may require there shall be meetings of the owners for the time being of the undivided shares in the said land and building to discuss and decide matters concerning the same as hereinafter mentioned and in regard to such meetings the following provisions shall apply:-
	...
	(k)	Except as hereinafter mentioned, any resolution on any matter concerning the said land and building passed by a simple majority vote at a validly convened meeting of the owners shall be binding on all the owners of the said land and building Provided that:-
		...
	(iii)	no resolution shall be valid if it is contrary to the provisions of this Deed Provided Always that the provisions of this Deed in regard to the management of the said building and (subject to the consent of the First Owner or any Agent or Service Company while they are respectively acting as Managers hereunder) the rights and duties of the Managers may be altered, added to or amended by a resolution passed by a three quarter majority vote at a meeting at which the owners of not less than one half of all the undivided shares in the said land and building are present in person or by proxy."

6.1 1995年6月26日，答辯人發出通知，於1995年7月6日召開業主大會，議決下列議題 ：

“主要議題：1）表決車位管理費加幅事項，目前對車位管理費加幅的見議有兩點。

a) 本大廈管理委員會通過之決定，每個車位每月HK$70元正。

b) 10/F. H座劉宅提出“要按照公契所佔份數比例徵數………………”

6.2 會議如期於1995年7月6日舉行。該會議的紀錄與本案有關的部份後列如下 ：

“7月6日業主特別大會有64戶代表出席，佔全部業主57.14%，大會上通過及討論了以下決議：

1． 有關車位的管理貴加幅，將維持原有管理委員會的決定每月管理費70元正。這項決定是經過大會投票決定，投票結果如下：

i)	讚成每月70元管理費	- 33票
ii)	讚成跟公契比例（即有蓋車位每月40元正，無蓋車位每月20元正）	- 14票
iii)	無意見	- 15票

上述投票，由本區議員林翠蓮小姐出席監票。”

7． 《建築物管理條例》附表3第3(7)段規定，“法團會議通過的決 議，除非決議已列載於按照第2段送達業主的通知內，或附加或附帶於如此列載的決議或其他事項，否則無效。”第2段規定，召開業主會議的通知須於會議日期前最少14天送達每名業主及租客代表。1995年7月6日舉行的業主大會只有9日的通知期，因此按附表3第3(7)條的規定，在該會議通過的決議是無效的決議。

8． 答辯人指在1989年，它按公契第16(k)(iii)條召開特別會議，通過向車位的業主收取車位管理費。就該特別業主大會，王金殿在他的証人陳述書說 ：

"7.

.......... In my memory some kind of meeting must have been held probably based on clause 16(k)(iii) of the DMC such that the Respondent could depart from the provisions in the DMC. If that was the case, it did not matter whether clause 11(d) was being relied upon by the Respondent to levy separate charges on car park owners since by following the procedure laid down in clause 16(k)(3), the Respondent could be so authorized in any way."

9． 就1995年7月6日的業主大會，王金殿說 ：

"9.

There was a show of hands for charging a new monthly fee to car park owners. From the said minutes it appeared that 33 voted for charging HK$70.00 p.m. to all car park owners, 14 voted for charging HK$20.00 p.m. to open space car parks and HK$40 p.m. to covered car parks, while 15 of them did not vote. I must point out that it was a practice of the Respondent to treat those not voting as being in consent with the majority decision of the other voters. Hence at the show of hands some 48 out of 62 of the voters voted for the HK$70.00 p.m. charge."

10． 王金殿並無提出証據，証明“those not voting as being in consent with the majority decision of the other voters”的慣例。“沒有意見”就是“沒有意見”；“沒有意見”怎可被視為同意大多數人的決定？本席裁定贊成每月70元管理費的33票根本上不符合公契第16(k)(iii)條所指“a three quarter majority”vote的規定。無論如何，這業主會議的決議因不夠14日的通知期是無效的決議。

11. 就証明1989年業主會議通過車位的業主須繳交管理費一事，答辯人須証明該決議是有效的決議，以及投票已符合公契第16(k)(iii)條“a three quarter majority”的規定。答辯人並無提供有關會議的紀錄。王金殿的証供未能証明這兩點，因此本席裁決答辯人未能提出足夠的証據，証明答辯人在1989年的某一個業主大會通過向車位的業主徵收車位管理費的決議為有效的決議。

12． 申請人默許及同意的答辯

申請人的申請是要求答辯人退回自1996年11月起繳付的車位管理費。1996年11月份的車位管理費是70元。這是自1995年4月由答辯人定下的車位管理費。自1995年開始，答辯人是在抗議的情況下繳付該些費用的，因此本席拒絕接納申請人默許或同意繳交1996年11月開始的車位管理費的答辯。

13． 基於上述的理由，本席裁決答辯人無權向車位的業主收取每月管理費。答辯人須於30天內向申請人退回21,384元車位的管理費。

14． 就申請人要求的第3項申索，本席不作出命令。

15． 訟費

本席頒下臨時訟費命令：答辯人須支付申請人本案的訟費（包括聘請大律師的費用）。如與訟雙方未能議定訟費的款額，該款額由法庭按區域法院訟費水平為基準而予以評定。如在14天內與訟任何一方不向本席提出申請，此項命令作實。