上訴至終審法院的當然權利門檻？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED v THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE and NEW GAS & COMPANY (a firm) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Le Pichon JA, Suffiad J, Sakhrani J - 判決日期：2009年6月17日 ### 案情摘要 原告（WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED）與第三方（ESSMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED）申請上訴至終審法院。背景涉及一座大廈地下停車場的佈局圖，其中包含編號為2、3、4的停車位及標示為「VOID」的區域。公契（DMC）第5條保留了原告在這些停車位上方建造閣樓的權利，但須符合最低淨空高度並獲得政府批准。原告進行了改建，包括建造夾層、拆除內牆並新建圍牆，將原停車位及「VOID」區域圍合，並將「VOID」區域重新指定為新停車位。整個夾層及被新牆圍合的區域被原告出租作工場用途。本案涉及四個爭議事項：關於消防喉管安裝的侵權索償、管理費欠款的反申索、要求拆除圍牆以恢復原狀的強制性禁制令，以及第三方對管理費的反申索。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原告及第三方是否有權根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(a)條「當然權利」上訴至終審法院，涉及消防喉管問題及強制性禁制令問題。原告爭辯其改建的閣樓及工場的價值超過100萬港元，符合上訴門檻。此外，原告亦提出一個關於建築事務監督/屋宇地政署署長批准是否等同於工務司署署長書面同意的法律問題，並試圖根據「其他理由」尋求上訴許可。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(a)條「當然權利」的適用性。對於消防喉管問題，法庭認為其本質是侵權損害賠償申索，不屬於「當然權利」範圍。對於強制性禁制令問題，法庭指出禁制令並未要求拆除擴建閣樓的任何部分，因此擴建閣樓的資本價值不相關。原停車位的價值亦不相關，因為禁制令或喉管問題不影響其所有權。法庭認為，強制性禁制令僅涉及拆除圍牆以符合批准的佈局圖，難以符合第22(1)(a)條的規定，因為上訴結果不會直接導致超過100萬港元的財務利益或損失。至於所謂「具重大普遍重要性的問題」，法庭認為原告提出的問題是假設性的，且高度依賴事實背景，不具普遍重要性。法庭亦未發現存在特殊情況以根據「其他理由」授予上訴許可。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回原告及第三方就消防喉管問題及強制性禁制令問題上訴至終審法院的許可申請，亦拒絕修訂上訴通知書的申請。然而，法庭批准了關於管理費問題的「當然權利」上訴許可。法庭命令原告及第三方支付第一被告的訟費，按主訟人與主訟人基準計算聆訊訟費，而申請（聆訊除外）的訟費則歸入訴訟費用。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(a)條申請上訴許可時，必須證明爭議事項直接涉及超過100萬港元的財務利益或損失。法庭亦重申，對於「具重大普遍重要性的問題」，該問題必須是真實存在而非假設性的，且不應過於依賴特定事實背景。此外，法庭對原告及第三方在申請暫緩執行期間提供虛假專家證據的行為表示強烈譴責，但未因此判處懲罰性訟費，而是維持按彌償基準支付暫緩執行申請的訟費，並按主訟人與主訟人基準支付上訴許可聆訊的訟費。 --- ### 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: WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED v THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WING MING INDUSTRIAL CENTRE and NEW GAS & COMPANY (a firm) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Le Pichon JA, Suffiad J, Sakhrani J - Date of Judgment: 17 June 2009 ### Factual Background The plaintiff (WING MING GARMENT FACTORY LIMITED) and the third party (ESSMAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED) sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The case concerned the layout plan for the ground floor of a building, which included numbered car parking spaces 2, 3, and 4, and areas marked 'VOID'. Clause 5 of the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) reserved the plaintiff's right to construct a loft over these spaces, subject to minimum headroom and government approval. The plaintiff carried out alterations, including constructing a mezzanine floor, demolishing an internal wall, and building a new wall enclosing the original car parking spaces and 'VOID' areas. The 'VOID' areas were re-designated as new car parking spaces. The entire mezzanine and the newly enclosed area were rented out by the plaintiff as workshops. The proceedings involved four distinct issues: a trespass claim regarding a fire services pipe installation, a counterclaim for arrears of management fees, a mandatory injunction to restore the original car parking spaces, and a third-party counterclaim for management fees. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff and third party were entitled to leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal as of right under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, specifically concerning the pipe issue and the injunction issue. The plaintiff argued that the value of the altered loft and workshops exceeded HK$1 million, meeting the threshold. Additionally, the plaintiff raised a legal question regarding whether approval from the Building Authority/Director of Buildings and Lands constituted written consent from the Director of Public Works, and sought leave under the 'or otherwise' limb. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the applicability of the 'as of right' limb under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. For the pipe issue, it was deemed a claim for damages for trespass, not falling within the 'as of right' limb. Regarding the mandatory injunction, the court noted that it did not require demolition of any part of the extended loft, rendering its capital value irrelevant. The value of the original car parking spaces was also irrelevant, as neither the injunction nor the pipe issue affected ownership. The court found it difficult to see how section 22(1)(a) was engaged for the injunction issue, as the appeal's outcome would not immediately confer or impose a financial benefit or detriment exceeding HK$1 million. The 'questions of great general or public importance' raised by the plaintiff were considered hypothetical and fact-sensitive, thus lacking general importance. No special circumstances were found to grant leave under the 'or otherwise' limb. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the plaintiff's and third party's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal regarding the pipe issue and the injunction issue, and also refused leave to amend the notice of motion. However, leave to appeal was granted as of right concerning the management fees issues. The court ordered the plaintiff and third party to pay the first defendant's costs, with hearing costs on a party and party basis, and application costs (other than the hearing) to be in the cause. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies that for leave to appeal as of right under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, the matter in dispute must directly involve a financial benefit or detriment exceeding HK$1 million. It also reiterates that questions of great general or public importance must be real, not hypothetical, and not overly fact-dependent. The court strongly deprecated the plaintiff's and third party's conduct in providing false expert evidence during the stay application but did not impose punitive costs for the leave application itself, maintaining indemnity costs for the stay application and party-and-party costs for the leave hearing. --- ### 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.