收樓令上訴期間是否可暫緩執行？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：STAR PLAY DEVELOPMENT LTD v BESS FASHION MANAGEMENT CO. LTD - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：馬道立法官 (Hon Ma J) - 判決日期：2002年6月7日 ### 案情摘要 原告是涉案物業的業主，被告是租客。雙方於1999年10月5日簽訂租賃協議，租期兩年，並包含一個可由被告行使的續租一年選擇權。原告主張被告未有行使該選擇權，而被告則聲稱已行使，或原告受衡平法不容反悔原則 (estoppel) 約束，或已放棄其權利，又或雙方已達成口頭協議將租期延長兩年。原告就收回物業的申請獲得簡易判決 (summary judgment)。被告就此判決提出上訴，並申請暫緩執行 (stay of execution) 該收樓令。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要爭議點是被告是否有充分理由獲批暫緩執行收樓令。法院需考慮：1. 暫緩執行是否會使上訴變得毫無意義 (nugatory)；2. 上訴的理據強弱；3. 暫緩執行對勝訴方（原告）造成的潛在損害。 ### 判決理由 法院指出，根據《高等法院規則》第59號命令第13條規則第1款 (RSC Order 59, rule 13(1))，上訴本身不構成暫緩執行的理由，除非有充分理由。法院需進行平衡考量，並強調勝訴方不應被剝奪其勝訴成果。儘管被告未能提供充分證據證明其業務會因收樓而「毀滅」，但法院認為若不暫緩執行，被告將失去物業佔用權，一旦上訴得直，其上訴將變得毫無意義。法院亦考慮到暫緩執行對原告造成的影響，認為原告可透過追討中間收益 (mesne profits) 和損害賠償來彌補損失。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述暫緩執行的原則： - Ketchum International plc v. Group Public Relations Holdings Limited [1997] 1 WLR 4：說明收樓令若不暫緩執行，上訴可能變得毫無意義。 - World Trade Centre Group Limited v. Resourceful River Limited (未經報導，1993年5月12日)：強調聲稱經濟破產需提供充分證據支持，而非僅憑空泛斷言。 - Caine Tai Investment Company Limited v. Ayala International Finance Limited [1983] 1 HKC 163：指出不暫緩執行會造成嚴重不利影響已足夠，不一定需證明經濟破產。 - Winchester Cigarette Machinery Limited v. Payne (No.2) (未經報導，1993年12月15日)：指出強而有力的上訴理由通常足以獲批暫緩執行。 ### 裁決與命令 法院批准被告暫緩執行收回物業的命令，直至其上訴有結果或另有命令為止。暫緩執行僅限於實際佔用 (actual possession)，原告仍可完成收樓程序，但不能實際佔用物業。被告須支付佔用物業期間的費用，上訴訟費則由上訴方承擔。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了暫緩執行申請的法律原則，特別是平衡上訴人上訴可能變得毫無意義的風險與勝訴方被剝奪勝訴成果的權利。法院強調，即使上訴人未能提供充分證據證明經濟困境，若收樓令的性質本身會使上訴得直後無法恢復原狀，法院仍可能考慮批出暫緩執行。同時，法院會透過設定條件（如支付佔用費）來減輕對勝訴方的潛在損害。 --- ### 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: STAR PLAY DEVELOPMENT LTD v BESS FASHION MANAGEMENT CO. LTD - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Ma J - Date of Judgment: 7 June 2002 ### Factual Background The plaintiff is the landlord and the defendant is the tenant of the premises. A tenancy agreement was signed on 5 October 1999 for a term of two years, with an option for the defendant to extend for one year. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had not exercised the option, while the defendant argued it had, or that the plaintiff was estopped from denying it, or had waived its rights, or that an oral agreement for a two-year extension existed. The plaintiff obtained summary judgment for possession of the premises. The defendant appealed this judgment and applied for a stay of execution of the possession order. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the defendant had shown good reason for a stay of execution of the possession order. The court had to consider: 1. Whether the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay; 2. The merits or strength of the appeal; and 3. The potential prejudice to the successful party (the plaintiff) if a stay were granted. ### Ratio Decidendi The court noted that, per RSC Order 59, rule 13(1), an appeal does not automatically operate as a stay of execution unless good reasons exist. The court must conduct a balancing exercise, emphasizing that the successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of its success. While the defendant's claims of financial ruin were bare assertions, the court recognized that without a stay, the defendant would lose possession, rendering a successful appeal nugatory. The court also considered the plaintiff's position, concluding that any prejudice could be mitigated by mesne profits and damages for wrongful occupation. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases to illustrate the principles governing stays of execution: - Ketchum International plc v. Group Public Relations Holdings Limited [1997] 1 WLR 4: highlighted that an appeal against a possession order might be rendered nugatory without a stay. - World Trade Centre Group Limited v. Resourceful River Limited (unreported, 12 May 1993): emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support claims of financial ruin. - Caine Tai Investment Company Limited v. Ayala International Finance Limited [1983] 1 HKC 163: indicated that a serious deleterious effect, not necessarily financial ruin, could suffice for a stay. - Winchester Cigarette Machinery Limited v. Payne (No.2) (unreported, 15 December 1993): suggested that a strong appeal usually warrants a stay. ### Decision & Orders The court granted the defendant a stay of execution for the actual possession of the premises until the determination of the appeal or further order. The stay was specifically for 'actual possession,' allowing the plaintiff to complete all procedures short of physical re-entry. The defendant was ordered to make payments for the use and occupation of the premises in the interim, with costs of the appeal reserved. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principles for granting a stay of execution, balancing the risk of an appeal being rendered nugatory against the successful party's right to enjoy its judgment. It highlights that the nature of the order (e.g., possession) can be a strong factor in determining if an appeal would be nugatory, even if financial ruin isn't fully proven. The court also demonstrated how conditions (like interim payments) can be imposed to mitigate prejudice to the successful party. --- ### 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.