The Incorporated Owners of Honour Building v. LOU CHUI SIM

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Registrar proposes to allow in respect of the costs of the Applicant herein -

	Common Fund	Party & Party
Profit costs ....................	-	$43,336.00
Disbursements ...............	-	$ 972.50
Taxing fee .....................	-	$ 2,220.00
	____________	_________
	-	$46,528.50
	____________	_________

2． Those items which have been totally or partially taxed off or otherwise are listed overleaf.

3． Any party who is dissatisfied with the amount proposed to be allowed may apply in writing within 14 days after service of this Notice on him to the Registrar for an appointment* to have the Bill of Costs taxed.

4． The party on whose behalf the Bill has been lodged shall serve a copy of this Notice together with a copy of the Bill on every person entitled to be heard on taxation, UNLESS he intends to apply for an appointment to tax* in which case the Bill of Costs shall be served together with a Notice of such an appointment.

Dated the 8th day of March, 2001.

	......................................................
	(S. W Chan)
	Acting Deputy Registrar, Lands Tribunal

To:	Messrs. Y.T. Szeto & Company
	Solicitors
	Units 701-2 Golden Centre
	188 Des Voeux Road Central, H.K.
	(Ref.: AS/6447/99/BT)

*Remark:- Please approach the Taxation Clerk at District Court Registry for a date to be fixed for taxation call-over before a District Court Master. 」

Between
	The Incorporated Owners of Honour Building	Applicant
	and
	LIU Chui Sim	1st Respondent
	WONG Kwong Wai	2nd Respondent

APPOINTMENT TO REVIEW PROVISIONAL TAXATION

Upon the receipt of Notice of Objection to provisional taxation from the 1st Respondent, I hereby appoint Tuesday, the 29th day of May, 2001 at 10:30 0'clock in the forenoon in the Master's Chambers in Court No. 45 on the 12th floor of District Court, Wanchai Law Courts, Wanchai Tower, 12 Harbour Road, Hong Kong, to review the Applicant's costs herein. Please file to court and serve on the Applicant a list of objections 7 days before the hearing.

Dated the 11th day of May, 2001.

	(S.K. Chan)
	for Registrar, District Court」

「LDBM 266/1999

Between
	The Incorporated Owners of Honour Building	Applicant
	and
	LIU Chui Sim	1st Respondent
	WONG Kwong Wai	2nd Respondent

ALLOCATUR

I, HEREBY CERTIFY that the bill of costs of Messrs. Y.T. Szeto & Company, Solicitors against the 1st and 2nd Respondents has been taxed by the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal on the 8th day of March 2001 pursuant to the Order to Deputy Judge Tong dated 16th August 2000 and are allowed at as follows:-

	PARTY & PARTY (HK$)
	Profit costs	43,336.00
	Disbursements	972.50
	Taxing fee	2,220.00
		_________
	Allowed at	46,528.50
		_________
	Dated the 10th day of May, 2001.

	(SUEN Yun-chai)
	Registrar Lands Tribunal」

「16. Extension etc., of time (O. 62, r. 16)

(1) A taxing master may-

(a) extend the period within which a party is required by or under this Order to begin proceedings for taxation or to do anything in or in connection with proceedings before that master;

(b) extend the period provided by rule 33 (2) beyond the signing of the taxing officer's certificate by setting the certificate aside;

(c) where no period is specified by or under this Order or by the Court for the doing of anything in or in connection with such proceedings, specify the period within which the thing is to be done.

(2) Where an order of the Court specifies a period within which anything is to be done by or before a taxing master, then unless the Court otherwise directs, the taxing master may from time to time extend the period so specified on such terms (if any) as he thinks just.

(3) A taxing master may extend any such period as is referred to in the foregoing provisions of this rule although the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of that period.」

(2) Subject to any rules made by the Chief Justice under section 10 (3), Order 62 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4 sub.leg.) shall apply to the award, taxation and recovery of costs in the Tribunal.

"Order 1

(HK) "Registrar" (司法常務官) means the Registrar of the High Court, and includes a Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar;

"master" (聆案官) means a master of the High Court and includes the Registrar, and Deputy and Assistant Registrars;

(2) (2) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires, "the Court" (法院、法庭) means the Court of First Instance or any one or more of the judges thereof whether sitting in court or in chambers or the Registrar or any master but the foregoing provision shall not be taken as affecting any provision of these rules and, in particular, Order 32, rule 11 by virtue of which the authority and jurisdiction of the Registrar is defined and regulated.

Order 62 (Rule 1)

"certificate"（證明書）includes allocatur;

"costs"（證費）include fees, charges, disbursements, expenses and remuneration;

"taxed costs"（經評定的訟費）means costs taxed in accordance with this Order; (HK) "taxing master"（訟費評定官）means the Registrar as taxing master.

2. Application (r. 2)

(HK) (1) This Order shall apply to all proceedings in the Court, except non-contentious or common formprobateproceedings and proceedings in matters of prize.

(2) Where by virtue of any Ordinance the costs of or incidental to any proceedings before an arbitrator or umpire or before a tribunal or other body constituted by or under any Ordinance, not being proceedings in the High Court, are taxable in the Court of First Instance, the following provisions of this Order, that is to say, rule 7 (4) and (5), rule 8 (6), rules 14 to 16, rule 17 (1), rule 18, rule 21 (except paragraph (3)), rules 22 to 26 and rules 33 to 35, shall have effect in relation to proceedings for taxation of those costs as they have effect in relation to proceedings for taxation of the costs of or arising out of proceedings in the High Court.

(3) This Order shall have effect subject to the provisions of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) and to any rules made thereunder and to any other enactment.

12. Powers of taxing masters to tax costs (r. 12)

(1) A taxing master shall have power to tax-

(a) the costs of or arising out of any cause or matter in the High Court;

(b) the costs directed by an award made on a reference to arbitration under any enactment or pursuant to an arbitration agreement to be paid; and

(c) any other costs the taxation of which is directed by an order of the Court.

13. Powers of certain judicial clerks to tax costs (r. 13)

(HK) (1) A Chief Judicial Clerk shall have power to transact all such business and exercise all such authority as under paragraph (4) of rule 21 of this Order may be transacted and exercised by the Registrar and to issue a certificate for any costs taxed by him.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be taken as empowering a Chief Judicial Clerk to tax any costs in respect of which an appointment to tax has been given.

(3) In exercising the powers conferred on him by this Order, a Chief Judicial Clerk shall comply with any directions given to him by a taxing master.

21. Mode of beginning proceedings
for taxation (r.21)

(HK)(1) A party entitled to require any costs to be taxed shall file in the Court his bill of costs and shall obtain from the taxing master an appointment to tax.

(HK)(2) Not less than 7 days' notice of such appointment to tax together with a copy of the bill of costs shall be served by such person on every person entitled to be heard on taxation.

(HK)(3) Except where an order for the taxation of the bill of costs of a solicitor is made under section 67 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap. 159) at the instance of the solicitor, it shall not be necessary for a copy of the bill of costs or of the notice of appointment to tax to be sent to any party who has not acknowledged service in the proceedings which gave rise to the taxation.

(HK)(4) In proceedings for the taxation of costs of, or arising out of, a cause or matter in which the amount of the bill of costs does not exceed the sum of $100,000, the taxing master may be notice inform the party commencing the proceedings for taxation the amount which the taxing master proposes to allow in respect of the costs to be taxed and further the taxing master shall not give any notice under paragraph (2) unless, within 14 days after serving notice of the amount he proposes to allow, any person entitled to be heard on taxation applies to the taxing master for an appointment to tax.

(HK)(5) A party must, when he files his bill of costs, deposit with the Court an amount equivalent to the taxing fee which would be payable if the bill were to be allowed in full. When the taxing master signs a certificate, the balance of the sum so deposited, if any, after deducting the prescribed taxing fee, shall be repaid to the party who deposited such amount.

(HK)(6) If a bill of costs is withdrawn less than 7 days before the appointment for taxation, a fee shall be payable by the party who withdraws the bill.

(HK)(7) The fee payable under paragraph (6) shall be deducted by the Court from the amount deposited under paragraph (5).

33. Application to taxing master for review (r.33)

(1) Any party to any taxationproceedings who is dissatisfied with the allowance or disallowance in whole or in part of any item by a taxing master, or with the amount allowed by a taxing master in respect of any item, may apply to the taxing master to review his decision in respect of that item.

(2) An application under this rule for review of a taxing master's decision may be made at any time within 14 days after that decision or such shorter period as may be fixed by the taxing master.

Provided that no application under this rule for review of a decision in respect of any item may be made after the signing of the taxing master's certificate dealing finally with that item.

(3) Every applicant for review under this rule must at the time of making his application deliver to the taxing master objections in writing specifying by a list the items or parts of items the allowance or disallowance of which or the amount allowed in respect of which, is objected to and stating concisely the nature and grounds of the objection in each case, and must deliver a copy of the objections to each other party (if any) who attended on the taxation of those items or to whom the taxing master directs that a copy of the objections shall be delivered.

(4) Any party to whom a copy of the objections is delivered under this rule may, within 14 days after delivery of the copy to him or such shorter period as may be fixed by the taxing master, deliver to the taxing master answers in writing to the objections stating concisely the grounds on which he will oppose the objections, and shall at the same time deliver a copy of the answers to the party applying for review and to each other party (if any) to whom a copy of the objections has been delivered or to whom the taxing master directs that a copy of the answers shall be delivered.

(5) An application under this rule for review of the taxing master's decision in respect of any item shall not prejudice the power of the taxing master under rule 17 to use an interim certificate in respect of items his decision as to which is not objected to.

34. Review by taxing master (r.34)

(HK)(1) A review under rule 33 shall be carried out by the taxing master to whom the taxation was originally assigned.

(1) E-mail dated 1 August 2000 from
Acting Registrar, High Court to
Acting Registrar, District Court

「Christopher C Chan
2000/08/01 06:30 PM

To: Queeny KY AuYeung
cc: Dep Regr Lands & Regr Dist Ct
(E-mail addresses omitted)

Subject: Re: Taxation for Cases in the Lands Tribunal

Dear Queeny,
Thank you for the e-mail on the above subject. I agree with you on the points raised. Taxation of the Lands Tribunal Bills after 1 September should be done by District Court Masters as they are well qualified to do so. There is no reason for the High Court Masters to do the taxation as Section 2 of the Ordinance provides that the Registrar of the District Court shall be the Registrar of the Lands Tribunal. Taxation on whatever scale is only the basis of calculation and should not affect the jurisdiction at all.

I worked under the impression that there would not be any qualified person to act as the Registrar for the Lands Tribunal. It is now clarified; I do apologize for any confusion that has been caused.

Christopher」

(2) Extract of Memorandum dated 14 August 2000
from Acting Chief District Judge to all judges of
the District Court, Family Court and Lands Tribunal

「 MEMO
From Chief District Judge	To Judges and Deputy Judges, District Court, Family Court And the Lands Tribunal
Ref. in
Tel No. 2582-4127	Your Ref. in
Fax No. 2511-1940	Dated
Date 14 August 2000	Fax No.

The District Court (Amendment) Ordinance 2000

The District Court (Amendment) Ordinance 2000, the new Rules of the District Court, and Practice Direction 27 in respect of civil proceedings in the District Court shall come into effect on 1 September 2000. In a nutshell, the jurisdiction in respect of monetary claims will be increased to $600,000 (S.32), the jurisdiction for recovery of land will be increased to a rateable value of $240,000 (S.35), and the equity jurisdiction will be increased to $600,000 in respect of monetary claims, and $3,000,000 where land is involved, provided that the non-land portion, if any, does not exceed $600,000 (S.37).

2. A Masters' Office will also be in operation on the 12/F with effect from 1 September 2000. Ms Queeny Au-Yeung will be the Acting Registrar, District Court, assisted by Mr. Anthony Chow and Mr. C.K. Chan, Acting Registrars, District Court. The Registrar and Masters shall have all the jurisdiction of a District Judge in chambers, but it is envisaged that they will only deal with call-overs and cases of no serious disputes, while cases involving substantial arguments will be adjourned before judges in chambers. The Masters will also conduct call-overs for examination of debtors and taxation of bills of costs of the District Court, Family Court and the Lands Tribunal. Distraints and interpleaders will continue to be dealt with by judges.

3. ........

(Sd.) (B.W. Fung) Acting Chief District Judge

c.c.	Deputy Judge Hawkes, CFI (CDJ)
	Mr. Chu Wai-yim, Registrar, District Court
	Ms. Queeny Au-Yeung, Acting Registrar, District Court
	(Designate)
	Listing Officer, District Corut
	Assistant Listing Officer, District Court Registry 」

(1) the decision of the master made on 29th May 2001 be and is hereby set aside;

(2) matters relating to taxation of costs in the two instant cases be transferred to the Court of First Instance;

(3) no order as to costs incurred for whatever steps taken so far in relation to the matter of costs.

香港特別行政區土地審裁處

申請編號1999年LDBM第266及373宗

______________

判 決 書

______________

1. 申請人是於1995年3月31日註冊的安定大厦業主立案法團，而第1答辯人廖翠嬋及第2答辯人黃廣渭分別是安定大厦C8號2字樓連平台的一個單位於2000年4月27日之前及之後的業主。申請人通過在本次審訊中的兩件案件，即LDBM 266/1999 及LDBM 373/1999，分別追收兩名答辯人所欠大厦維修費及大厦管理費，申請人亦要求收回有關費用的利息及採取有關法律行動的費用。於是次審訊中，第1答辯人是第2答辯人的母親，而第2答辯人亦獲授權代表第1 答辯人。

（一）申請人的証人証供及証物：

2. 申請人只傳召了一名証人作供，他是余悅湛先生。這名証人自申請人成立時開始直到現在均是申請人法團的成員，亦有參予所有申請人就大厦維修事宜及日常運作所舉行的會議，包括業主大會，証人亦是代表申請人，簽約聘請有關的管理公司的人。他於作供期間將是次訴訟的各樣文件証物以合訂本方式呈堂，內容包括了大厦公契，管理公司合約及會議紀錄，所有文件均已合併列為申請人証物A1號，而個別文件，則以其於文件集中所獲編排的頁數作為索引。除証物A1外，証人亦提供了一份由長安物業管理有限公所編寫的5頁定安大厦住戶欠交管理費紀錄表。列為申請人証物A2號。証人在作供期間，已經詳細地交待了定安大厦是次集資為大厦進行維修工程的因由及經過，而有關所籌集得到的資金是如何分配及應用的帳目及細節，亦可見於各文件証物之中，至於每戶單位應科之款項及期數，亦是由特別業主大會於1997年10月16日以舉手投票方式在約80%的大多數情況下通過，即住戶每單位應分別以3期依次繳付$11,820, $7,092及$4,728。而兩答辯人對此些金額仍然分毫未付，証人承認在大厦進行維修期間，由於大厦平台有僭建物的關係，在沒有住戶合作的情況下，維修承建商未能依圖則完成所有的水管重鋪工程。

3. 另外有關欠交管理費的數目，(見申請人証物A2)申請人是由有關管理公司處得知，兩名答辯人所欠支付期數，從而計算出列於申請人証物A1第267及268頁的欠款期數及總額，而証人從來沒有聽過長安物業管理有限公司的經理，吳潔梅小姐曾向他提及，准許第2答辯人在H8單位的僭建物被清拆之前，可以不交管理費。

（二）答辯人的証人，証供與証物：

4. 答辯人一方只有第2 答辯人自己出庭作供，雖然他只是在2000年4月27日才取代其母親即第1答辯人成為有關單位的業主，他在在該日之前，已經得到其母親的授權，與申請人及有關的管理的公司，就大厦的維修及管理的事宜進行交涉，所以他可以就有關的事實作供。首先第2答辯人指十多年來，由於H8單位在大厦天井築有僭建物，遮檔了他所擁有的單位所能接收的自然光線及空氣的流通，引致他單位的租值下降，令他蒙受損失，所以他多番與申請人及其所聘請在不同時間管理大厦的管理公司進行交涉，要求申請人及其管理公司運用公契的權力，清拆H8單位的僭建物，但始終不得要領，故第2答辯人唯有以不交管理費及不交大厦維修費的手段，迫申請人及有關的管理公司採取行動，清拆H8的僭建物，另外第2答辯人亦在其証供中特別提及兩件事情，第一件事情是在長安管理公司接手後，第2答辯人與經理吳小姐談及僭建物的事情，吳小姐說需要3個月的時間，第2答辯人便在那時開始每3個月寄出一張支票給管理公司，分期清付所有欠交的管理費，而第2答辯人到了1997年8月，已清付了所有欠交的管理費了。但由於第2答辯人眼見管理公司始終沒有對H8的僭建物採取行動，所以堅拒繳交自97年9月份開始的管理費，為了証明此事，第2答辯人將6張管理費收條呈堂，成為答辯人証物R2。

5. 第2答辯人在証供中第2件特別提到的事情是在大厦維修工程進行期間，承建商曾通知第2答辯人要將水管鋪進他的僭建物內，故着第2答辯人在跟他約一個方便的時間，以便進行上述的工程，第2答辯人說其實重鋪該段水管本身並不太重要，反而H8的僭建物的存在對他及大厦所構成的問題更大，所以他堅持要承建商拆去H8的僭建物後，他才與承建商約時間去鋪他的單位C8內的水管，但由於H8僭建物一直存在，所以他便沒有與承建商約定時間了。

（三）本席就案中各點爭議的裁决：

(a) 就案件編號LDBM 373/1999中有關欠交管理費的裁決。

6. 首先本席接受申請人証供，指申請人有權指派管理公司，依大厦公契的規定，去向住戶收取每個月的管理費，事實上第2答辯人亦承認他與第1答辯人的確是沒有繳交自97年9月起計的管理費，而第2答辯人亦同意倘若H8的僭建物被拆除，他是有責任去清繳上述他所拖欠的管理費，但是他似乎依賴3點去支持他不交管理費的論據即：

（i）申請人及管理公司均沒有盡了管理大廈的責任，所以不應收取住戶的管理費。

（ii）長安物業管理有限公司的吳小姐曾跟第2答辯人說過如果，一天未拆H8的僭建物便一天不收他的管理費及

（iii）他就1997年8月以前的管理費已是完全清繳了。

7. 第2答辯人在這方面的証供是，當長安物業管理有限公司的吳小姐接任後，向他追收欠交的管理費。第2答辯人於是以H8未拆，所以他不交管理費為理由，拒絕繳交，但吳小姐說要給她3個月的時間去進行拆H8僭建物的事宜。並着第2答辯人先行清繳所欠的管理費，第2答辯人於是大約3數個月一次地寄一張支票去清繳所拖欠的管理費。而吳小姐亦有發收條給他，到現在他只保留有部份收條即（答辯人証物R2），而到後來，第2答辯人發現H8的僭建物始終沒有被清拆，所以又再拒交自1997年9月開始的管理費了。而吳小姐則曾答應他如果H8的僭建物未被拆去，則他可以暫緩繳交管理費。第2答辯人亦曾在庭上告訴申請人証人說如果他做好H8則他一定會清繳所有費用的。

8. 在分析第2答辯人上述的証供時，本席有下列疑問，即他所提供的管理費收條，第2答辯人雖然沒有指明有關所屬的管理費的月份，但郤印有銀行的機印收款日期，而6張收條的日期，均清一色是在1997年8月14日發出的，這即說明，該6個月的管理費，是在1997年8月14日一次過的存進有關管理公司在銀行的戶口的，這與第2答辯人的証供，証供說他是3數個月一次付款的証供不符。另外長安管理公司的正式管理合約是於1996年10月1日生效的，（見申請人証物A1第64頁）。故如果第2答辯人所言吳小姐要求第2答辯人有3個月的時間清拆H8僭建物的對話時間應該是在96年10月或是更早的時間，而不是97年8月。

9. 另外第2答辯人在庭上有關吳小姐是如何答應他可以不交管理費的談話內容並不清楚，但在一份日期為2000年2月10日第1答辯人就案件編號LDBM373/99遞交入土地審裁處的表格7，則有不列的說法：

10. “96年“長安”上任,“吳小姐”答應及有責任處理“H8佔天井事”叫本人給時間，約3個月，假如唔做，才有權唔交。本人分批用支票寄去，她又寄回收條，至97年8月，但根本無做，本人追迫下，她叫本人去找“余主席”處理，又說“佢唔理，你便唔交，你有權唔交”。所以本人97年9月才無交，之前已付清。所以所聲稱欠數額不對。”

11. 故可見當時吳小姐所說的話，主要是着答辯人直接跟申請人証人余先生交涉，所謂“佢唔理，你便唔交，你有權唔交”就算是吳小姐說過的話，也不構成管理公司放棄追討管理費的權利，因為管理公司明顯地是由立案法團授權去行使其職務的。所以只是一個代理人的身份，而當一個代理人叫別人去找自己的僱主去處理事情時，他已經表明自己已經不是代替僱主以代理人的身份去處理有關的事情了。所以他所說的話，已不能令其僱主負上法律的責任。但第2答辯人可能說，那份表格7是由第1答辯人所簽署的，所以不能算是他的案情。但是本席查看記錄，第2答辯人自案件在小額錢債審裁處開始，即每次均以第1答辯人的代理人身份出庭。故第2答辯人對第1答辯人所交到本署的表格7的內容，肯定是絕對知情的。故本席裁定第1答辯人及第2答辯人不可以吳小姐曾說過那些話來作理由而拒交管理費。况且，就事實的相對可能性來看，吳小姐會如此草率地去向第2答辯人作出放棄追討有關第1答辯人及第2答辯人的單位所欠管理費的機會不大，故本席不接受第1答辯人及第2答辯人在此點上所提出的抗辯理由。

12. 另外關於第2答辯人所指，管理公司未有履行職責的說法，申請人証人提出了確切的証供反駁，那就是整個安定大廈的範圍內，在大廈業主立案法團成立前已有非常多的僭建物，括了花籠及寮屋等，自立案法團成立後，及進行大廈維修工程時，已將大廈僭建的情况，委托建築師去信屋宇署，要求屋宇署採取行動進行清拆，而大廈外牆的花籠，亦因為收到屋宇署的清拆令的緣故，至今已拆去不少。至於H8僭建物，亦已經由管理公司所聘的建築師上報屋宇署。故本席認為，申請人根本沒有疏忽職守。故第1答辯人及第2答辯人無權不交管理費。

13. 就是再退一步而言，即使假設申請人及它的管理公司，在清拆H8僭建物上，的確有所疏忽，但要知道一間管理公司日常在管理大廈事務時要處理的事情不知凡幾，包括了聘請看更﹑管理員﹑保持大廈清潔，向各單位之業主及住客收管理費﹑大廈電梯及照明的維修等等職務。清拆公用地方僭建物，只是它衆多職務的其中一項。倘若所有業主及住戶能以立案法團或管理公司所負責衆多事情的一兩項有所缺失便不交管理費時，試問大廈業主立案法團或管理公司又怎可以有資源去繼續管理大廈。到頭來大廈業主立案法團破產，管理公司離去。大廈的公用地方在“無王管”的情况下，必然問題叢生。到時大廈的各業主就會自吃苦果了。於高等法院原訟庭的一件案件即 GRACE INTERNATIONAL LTD. V. INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FONTANA GARDENS & ORS. [1996] 4HKC 635 中大法官 LE PICHON 裁定有關原告人業主不能以被告人大廈業主立案法團，因為沒有做好大廈公用地方的維修工作，去拒交管理費時，便已作過上述的分析。（見案例中第661頁A至B段）

14. 為此，本席不接受第1答辯人及第2答辯人可以以申請人尚未清柝H8的僭建物為理由，拒交管理費。

15. 本席現在處理1996年7月到9月第1答辯人及第2答辯人的單位所欠的管理費的問題。由於申請人是提出訴訟的一方，故有舉証責任去提出証據證明第1答辯人及第2答辯人的確欠交管理費，在自97年9月份起的欠交管理費的問題上。由於，第2答辯人在庭上承認的確沒有交的緣故，所以申請人沒有舉証的問題，但在處理96年7月到9月的管理費的問題時，申請人便有舉証的問題了。首先申請人証人只能提供一份由長安物業管理有限公司的資料呈堂，成為証物A2。內容只非常簡單地提到第1答辯人及第2答辯人的單位所欠的管理費，包括了96年7月到9月的管理費，此外就不能提交其餘的帳目或催繳通知書去證實此點，反而第2答辯人能提供証物R2去證明他曾在1997年8月一次過交最少6個月的管理費。那究竟有沒有可能如第2答辯人所說他其實是已清繳所有在97年8月份之前的管理費而只是管理公司弄錯了呢。對於這點質疑，申請人不能反駁，因為當時的大廈管理公司長安物業有限公司已經離職，而更令本席懷疑的是，既然欠交的管理費是有可能被追討利息的，那麼管理公司自然有責任將收到的欠款，首先去填補最早的期數，而不是較近的期數，若果不是如此做的話，有關的業主便要付較多的利息了，在本案中，長安物業有限公司似乎是將第2答辯人的付款先填補第1答辯人及第2答辯人的單位所欠由96年10月到97年8月的管理費，但郤沒有提出理由去解釋這個做法。故本席到了最後，並不接受申請人能證實第1答辯人及第2答辯人的確有拖欠96年7月到9月的管理費，所以本席裁定申請人不能向第1答辯人及第2答辯人追收這3個月的管理費。但除此之外，本席因為先前的分析及論據，判申請人向第1答辯人及第2答辯人追收自1997年9月份起所欠交的管理費獲得勝數。

(b) 就案件編號LDBM266/1999中有關欠交維修費的裁決。

16. 在這項申請中，本席採納了申請人証人所作證供的真確性。因為申請人証人在這部份的作供，有明確的文件支持證明申請人是通過合法合理的程序，去為大廈的維修工程進行招標，審議標書。揀選承建商，及攤分有關費用。第2答辯人所持兩點反對繳費的論據分別為：

(i) H8的僭建物未被清拆，所以維修工作尚未完成及

(ii) 通過第2答辯人物業的水管，尚未完成重鋪。

17. 本席認為此兩點根本不能成立。理由是在第(ii)點上承建商不是不願意重鋪水管而是第2答辯人不合作，沒有跟承建商約時間進行有關工程，如此承建商又怎能進行此項工程呢？關於(i)點，正如本席前述立案法團已命建築師將大廈僭建物的情况上報屋宇署。故並不是對H8僭建物袖手旁觀。况且第1答辯人及第2答辯人要清付維修費的責任。是取決於申請人所舉行業主大會所議決的數額及繳款日期。與工程是否完全峻工無關，倘若整幢大廈的每個業主均堅持要大廈的維修工程全面完工才肯付維修費。申請人又如何可以籌募到足夠的金錢，去僱用承建商展開有關的工程呢。為此，本席同時亦判申請人勝數並有權向第1答辯人及第2答辯人收取全數的維修費。

頒令：

18. 雖然本席判申請人勝訴，但本席認為申請人所要求的各項頒令中有些項目是有問題的，首先有關律師信的費用是應該包含在頌費之中而不是另外追收的。而在申請人獲得頒令後有關欠款的計算是應以判定債項的利息計算。而不是以公契中之利率計算。另外有關訟費的計算方法。雖然公契中規定是以按律師與委託人的基準而評定答辯人應付的訟費，但本席認為，法庭應有權去因應個別案件的情况，去衡量有關訟費的評核基礎，任何慨括性地否定法庭此項權力的合約條款應被視為無效，故本席下令本案中申請人可得的訟費，但僅能以按訴訟各方對評基準計算。到了最後，本席認為申請人在土地註冊處的釘契行動，是獨立於本案的追收行動，故本席不認為本席有權在本案中可以下令答辯人去支付有關釘契行動中之6,000元法律費用。經過上述考慮後，本席現正式頒令如下：

（一） 第1答辯人及第2答辯人須付下列各項予申請人

(i) 自1997年9月起計，到1999年12月的管理費共$11,760;

(ii) 維修費$23,640;

(iii) 第(i)項及第(ii)項中之各期費用由到期日開始按公契利率即每30天 為1.2%的方法計算到今日之利息;

(iv) 小額錢債審裁處之堂費$600;

(v) 收帳費(Collection Charges) $150;

(vi) 查冊費$100;

(vii) (i)及(ii)項答辯人須繳付利息自判令日到清償為止，有關利率按終審法院首席法官不時藉命令所決定者計算。

19. 另外本席頒下臨時訟費的命令：

第1答辯人及第2答辯人須支付申請人訟費，按訴訟各方對評基準釐定，如雙方不同意訟費款額，則訟費款額由法庭評定，如雙方不在14天就此臨時訟費的命令向本席提出申請，則此項臨時訟費的命令變為永久性的命令。