法團是否須強制執行公契？申索部分得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Sunbeam Investments Limited 訴 The Incorporated Owners of Villa Veneto - 法院：土地審裁處 (Lands Tribunal) - 法官：黃敬賢法官 (H. H. Judge WONG) - 判決日期：2010年6月30日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Sunbeam Investments Limited是Villa Veneto大廈33樓B室的業主，而答辯人是該大廈的業主立案法團。本案合併處理兩宗申請，主要涉及大廈管理問題。申請人投訴大廈內多個單位（包括34樓B室）的業主，未有在指定位置安裝冷氣機、34樓B室業主安裝了捲閘和露台圍封，以及大廈外牆滲水導致申請人單位受損。申請人認為答辯人未有妥善履行其法律責任，要求審裁處強制答辯人採取行動。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於答辯人（業主立案法團）是否已妥善履行其根據《建築物管理條例》(Building Management Ordinance) 及公契 (Deed of Mutual Covenant) 所規定的責任，強制業主遵守公契及大廈規則。具體爭議包括： 1. 答辯人是否有責任強制業主移除未在指定位置安裝的冷氣機？答辯人辯稱其有絕對酌情權，並已合理地決定將冷氣機問題延遲至大廈翻新工程時一併處理。 2. 答辯人是否有責任維修導致申請人單位滲水的外牆？答辯人辯稱已進行臨時維修，並計劃在大型翻新工程中永久解決問題。 3. 答辯人是否有責任強制34樓B室業主移除捲閘？答辯人辯稱捲閘並非違章建築工程，且業主已同意在翻新時移除。 4. 答辯人是否有責任強制34樓B室業主移除露台圍封？申請人認為露台圍封是違章建築工程並導致結構問題，答辯人則認為其不構成結構改動。 ### 判決理由 審裁處裁定，根據《建築物管理條例》第18(1)條及公契條款，答辯人有法律責任強制執行公契及大廈規則。答辯人無權通過決議來凌駕或違反這些規定。對於冷氣機問題，審裁處認為答辯人延遲執法是不合理且違反職責，即使涉及時間、成本或法律複雜性，也不能成為不執法的藉口。對於外牆滲水問題，審裁處認為答辯人拖延超過五年未作永久性維修，已構成失職，並裁定申請人有權獲得損害賠償。對於捲閘問題，審裁處接納申請人專家意見，認為捲閘屬違章建築工程，且其對外觀的改變構成違反公契，答辯人無權允許業主繼續違規。對於露台圍封問題，審裁處認為申請人未能證明露台圍封構成結構改動或對大廈其他部分造成損害或干擾，因此駁回此項申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例： - The Incorporated Owners of Hoi Luen Industrial Centre v. Ohashi Chemical Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 11：確立業主立案法團有法定責任強制執行公契條款，無權允許違反公契的行為。 - See Wah Fan v. Incorporated Owners of Ki Tat Garden (Phase I) [2003] 3 HKLRD 1：確認少數業主在管理委員會忽視其合法投訴時，可向法院尋求濟助。 - Lo Yuk Chu v. Hang Yick Properties Management Ltd [1996] 4 HKC 278：指出經理人的整體職責是「妥善管理」，即在情況下合理地履行所有必要職責。 - 李明月 v. 秀企業有限公司, LDBM 452 of 2007：重申經理人職責並非絕對，但須採取合理步驟履行職責。 - Incorporated Owners of Elite Garden v Profit More Co. Ltd [2002] 2 HKLRD 518：解釋「結構改動」的含義，包括改變建築物的形式或外觀。 ### 裁決與命令 審裁處裁定申請人部分勝訴，並作出以下命令： 1. 答辯人須立即對所有未在指定位置安裝冷氣機的業主採取行動，包括法律行動，以移除冷氣機並恢復外牆原狀。 2. 答辯人須立即對34樓B室業主採取行動，包括法律行動，以移除捲閘並恢復外牆原狀。 3. 答辯人須在四個月內對大廈外牆進行修復工程，以阻止滲水進入申請人單位，並修復受損內牆。 4. 答辯人須向申請人支付損害賠償31,360港元。 5. 駁回申請人關於露台圍封的申請。 6. 答辯人須支付申請人本案的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申業主立案法團在《建築物管理條例》及公契下的法定責任是強制性的，不能以管理上的酌情權或業主決議來規避。即使面對時間、成本或業主阻力，法團仍須積極執法。判決強調，法團不能允許業主違反公契，即使是暫時性的協議也可能被視為無效。此外，判決也澄清了「結構改動」的解釋，並指出外牆滲水等問題的長期拖延構成失職。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Sunbeam Investments Limited v The Incorporated Owners of Villa Veneto - Court: Lands Tribunal - Judge: H. H. Judge WONG - Date of Judgment: 30 June 2010 ### Factual Background The Applicant, Sunbeam Investments Limited, is the owner of Flat B on the 33rd Floor of Villa Veneto, and the Respondent is the incorporated owners of the building. This case consolidates two applications concerning building management issues. The Applicant complained that several owners, including the owner of Flat 34B, had installed air-conditioners in non-designated areas, and that the owner of Flat 34B had installed roller shutters and balcony enclosures. Additionally, the external walls of the building suffered from water seepage, causing damage to the Applicant's flat. The Applicant sought the Tribunal's assistance to compel the Respondent to take action, alleging a failure to properly discharge its legal duties. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the Respondent (the incorporated owners) had properly discharged its duties under the Building Management Ordinance and the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) to enforce compliance by owners. Specifically: 1. Was the Respondent obliged to compel owners to remove air-conditioners installed in non-designated areas? The Respondent argued it had absolute discretion and had reasonably decided to defer this issue until the building's major renovation. 2. Was the Respondent obliged to repair the external walls causing water seepage to the Applicant's flat? The Respondent claimed it had conducted temporary repairs and planned a permanent solution during the major renovation. 3. Was the Respondent obliged to compel the owner of Flat 34B to remove roller shutters? The Respondent contended the shutters were not unauthorized building works and the owner had agreed to remove them during renovation. 4. Was the Respondent obliged to compel the owner of Flat 34B to remove balcony enclosures? The Applicant argued these were unauthorized building works causing structural issues, while the Respondent maintained they were not structural alterations. ### Ratio Decidendi The Tribunal ruled that, under section 18(1) of the Building Management Ordinance and the DMC, the Respondent had a legal duty to enforce the DMC and House Rules. The Respondent could not pass resolutions that override or conflict with these provisions. Regarding air-conditioners, the Tribunal found the Respondent's delay in enforcement unreasonable and a breach of duty, stating that time, cost, or legal complexity were not valid excuses. For water seepage, the Tribunal held that the Respondent's failure to undertake permanent repairs for over five years constituted a breach of duty, entitling the Applicant to damages. Concerning roller shutters, the Tribunal accepted the Applicant's expert opinion that they were unauthorized building works and altered the external appearance in breach of the DMC, and the Respondent had no power to permit such contravention. For balcony enclosures, the Tribunal found the Applicant failed to prove they constituted structural alterations or caused damage/interference to other parts of the building, thus dismissing this claim. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The following precedents were cited in this case: - The Incorporated Owners of Hoi Luen Industrial Centre v. Ohashi Chemical Industries (Hong Kong) Ltd [1995] 2 HKC 11: Established that incorporated owners have a statutory duty to enforce covenants in the DMC and cannot permit contraventions. - See Wah Fan v. Incorporated Owners of Ki Tat Garden (Phase I) [2003] 3 HKLRD 1: Affirmed that a minority owner can seek relief from the court if the management committee ignores legitimate complaints regarding common parts. - Lo Yuk Chu v. Hang Yick Properties Management Ltd [1996] 4 HKC 278: Held that the manager's overall duty under the DMC is one of 'proper management', requiring all reasonably necessary actions in the circumstances. - 李明月 v. 秀企業有限公司, LDBM 452 of 2007: Reiterated that the manager's duty is not absolute but requires reasonable steps to fulfill. - Incorporated Owners of Elite Garden v Profit More Co. Ltd [2002] 2 HKLRD 518: Interpreted 'structural alteration' to include changes to the form or visual aspect of a building. ### Decision & Orders The Tribunal ruled partially in favour of the Applicant and issued the following orders: 1. The Respondent must forthwith take necessary actions, including legal actions, against all owners who have installed air-conditioners in non-designated areas, to remove them and reinstate the external wall. 2. The Respondent must forthwith take necessary actions, including legal actions, against the owner of Flat 34B, to remove the roller shutters and reinstate the external wall. 3. The Respondent must, within four months, carry out rectification work to the external wall to stop water seepage into the Applicant's flat and repair the damaged internal wall. 4. The Respondent must pay the Applicant damages in the sum of HK$31,360.00. 5. The Applicant's application regarding balcony enclosures was dismissed. 6. The Respondent must pay the Applicant's costs of the consolidated application. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that the statutory duties of incorporated owners under the Building Management Ordinance and the Deed of Mutual Covenant are mandatory and cannot be circumvented by managerial discretion or owner resolutions. Incorporated owners must actively enforce these provisions, even when faced with issues of time, cost, or owner resistance. The ruling emphasizes that incorporated owners cannot permit owners to breach the DMC, and even temporary agreements allowing contraventions may be deemed invalid. Furthermore, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of 'structural alteration' and highlights that prolonged delay in addressing issues like external wall water seepage constitutes a breach of duty. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.