Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Civil Appeal judgment no. CACV259/2006

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date09 October 2007
Citation[2007] 4 HKLRD 473; [2007] HKCLRT 659
Year2006
Judgement NumberCACV259/2006
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACV000259/2006 其士物業管理有限公司 訴 余秋養

CACV 259/2006

香港特別行政區

高等法院上訴法庭

民事司法管轄權

民事上訴

案件編號：民事上訴案件 2006 年第 259 號

(原區域法院雜項案件 2005 年第 1943 號)

______________________

原告人 其士物業管理有限公司
（前稱富居物業管理有限公司）
CHEVALIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED
(formerly known as RICH FORTRESS LIMITED)
與
被告人 余秋養
YU CHAU YEUNG

______________________

審理法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐
高等法院上訴法庭法官袁家寧
高等法院原訟法庭法官王式英

聆訊日期 ： 2007 年 9 月 11 日

判案書日期 ： 2007 年 10 月 9 日

判案書

上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判案書：

案情

1. 原告人是九龍新蒲崗雙喜街 17 號富德大廈(‘該大廈’)的管理公司。被告人是該大廈四樓 E 室（‘該單位’）的業主。被告人自 1992 年 1 月起一直欠交該單位的管理費。

2. 直至 1992 年 11 月 24 日被告人欠交的管理費為 $6,971.10 及利息。原告人根據該大廈公契的條款於 1992 年 11月 24 日在土地註冊處登錄一份欠交管理費的押記備忘錄（‘第一份備忘錄’）。

3. 由於被告人繼續欠交管理費，原告人於 2005 年 4 月 20 日再到土地註冊處登錄另一份押記備忘錄（‘第二份備忘錄’）。根據第二份備忘錄，被告人由 1992 年 1 月至 2005 年 4 月所欠交的管理費加上其他費用，總數為 $308,337.27。

原訴傳票申請

4. 原告人於 2005 年 6 月 30 日採用原訴傳票方式（‘傳票’）申請以下濟助：

(1) 被告人交出該單位的空置權；
(2) 被告人支付在傳票中列出押記的欠款；及
(3) 原告人有權出售該單位作為支付押記的欠款。

陳家殷法官的命令

5. 區域法院暫委法官陳家殷批准申請及於 2006 年 2 月 27 日作出包括以下的命令：

‘ 除非在本命令送達給被告人起計 28 天內，被告人向原告人清還 341,153.88 元和按判決率計算的利息（由2006 年 2 月 28 日起計直至付款日為止），被告人需向原告人交出該單位的空置管有權而原告人可根據下列條款出售該單位。’

6. 陳法官命令該單位出售的底價為 $970,000。

上訴時效的法律爭議

7. 被告人獲上訴法庭頒予許可，可針對陳法官有關的命令提出上訴，但只是局限於‘時效的法律爭議’的上訴理由。

大廈公契

8. 該大廈公契（‘公契’）第 V 部分第 D 段第 4 條規定大廈各單位業主需要支付管理費。另外，在第 E 段記載了以下的條文：

‘ 2. If any Owner shall fail to pay any amount payable hereunder within 30 days of the date on which the demand is made as aforesaid, he shall further pay to the Manager :-
(1) Interest calculated at the rate of $1.50 for each $100 or part thereof remaining unpaid for each period of 30 days or part thereto for which it remains unpaid.
(2) A collection charge of $500.00 (such sum to increase by 10% on a compound basis on each anniversary of the date of this Deed) or such lesser sum as the Manager may agree to cover the cost (other than legal costs of proceedings as hereinafter mentioned) of the extra work occasioned by the default.
3. All amounts which become payable by any Owner in accordance with the provisions of this Deed together with interest thereon as aforesaid and the said collection charge and all damages claimed for breach of any of the provisions of this Deed and all other expenses incurred in or in connection with recovering or attempting to recover the same shall be recoverable by civil action and shall be a charge upon the Share or Shares of the defaulting party and his Unit or Units at the suit of the Manager (and the claim in any such action may include a claim for the solicitor and own client costs of the Manager in such action and the defaulting Owner shall in addition to the amount claimed in such action be liable for such costs). In any such action the Manager shall conclusively be deemed to be acting as the agent or agents for and on behalf of the Owners as a whole and no Owner sued under the provisions of this Deed shall raise or be entitled to raise any defence of want of authority or take objection to the right of the Manager as plaintiff to sue or to recover such amounts as may be found to be due.
4. In the event of any Owner failing to pay any sum due and payable by him in accordance with the provisions of this Deed or failing to pay any damages awarded by any court for breach of any of the terms or conditions of this Deed within 30 days of the date on which the same become payable, the amount thereof together with interest as aforesaid and the said collection charge and all costs and expenses which may be incurred in recovering or attempting to recover the same including the legal expenses referred to in Clause 3 of this Sub-Section and in registering the charge hereinafter referred to, shall stand charged on the Share or Shares of the defaulting Owner and his Unit or Units and the Manager shall be entitled without prejudice to any other remedy hereunder to register a Memorial of such charge in the Land Office against the Share or Shares of the defaulting Owner and his Unit or Units. Such charge shall remain valid and enforceable as hereinafter mentioned notwithstanding that judgment has been obtained for the amount thereof unless and until such judgment has been satisfied.
5. Any charge registered in accordance with the last preceding paragraph shall be enforceable as an equitable charge by action at the suit of the Manager for an order for sale of the Share or Shares of the defaulting Owner together with the right to the exclusive use, occupation and enjoyment of the Unit or Units held therewith and the provisions of Clause 3 of this Sub-Section shall apply equally to any such action.’

欠交管理費所產生的押記

9. 上訴法庭法官高奕輝在Beacon Heights (Management) Limited v. Leung Ping Hung Antonio and others [1995] 1 HKLR 181 處理涉及大廈公契闡釋的議題。該案有關的大廈公契第 27 段的內容與本案的公契第 4 段相似。

10. 高法官闡釋第 27 條的意思是簽署公契的第一名業主要負上以下的責任：若果他欠交大廈管理費用，他必須根據大廈管理人的要求，提交一份有關他單位的押記作為支付欠款的保證，以後購買該大廈單位的業主同樣要受制於這份押記。但由於根據有關公契的條款，業主的物業會因業主欠交費用而被抵押及衡平法視某些需要做的事已經辦妥，故此管理人不用要求有關業主在欠交費用之後簽署一份押記。

11. 根據公契所產生的押記是一項衡平法押記，見：Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong 第 19(2) 冊第 280.152 段。

時效的爭議

12. 根據《香港法例》第 347章《時效條例》第 19(1) 條：

‘ 追討藉按揭財產或其他財產押記而獲得保證的本金的訴訟，或追討售賣土地所得收益的訴訟，不得在收取有關款項的權利產生的日期起計滿 12 年後提出。’

13. 根據這條例，追討欠款的訴訟時限必須在「收取有關款項的權利產生的日期」起計的 12 年內提出。在 Hornsey Local Board v. Monarch Investment Building Society [1889] 24 QBD 1，英國上訴法庭處理與本港第 19(1) 條相同的條例，上訴法庭法官 Lindley 說當押記產生的一刻開始，訴訟時效便開始生效。英國法庭在 Hornsey 之後的案例亦接納有關的闡釋，例如：見Gotham v. Doodes [2006] 1 WLR 729 (Lindsay J) 及 [2007] 1 All ER 527 (英國上訴法庭)。本庭同意Hornsey 對於有關條例的闡釋。

14. 代表原告人的楊大律師提出的第一個論點是原告人申請出售該單位是根據第二份（即 2005 年 4 月 20 日）的押記備忘錄來進行的。由於原告人的原訟傳票是在 2005 年 6 月 30...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT