衡平法承押人能否申請物業分劃出售？申索駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHAN CHING KIT KATHERINE v LAM SIK SHI and LAM SIK YING - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Kwan J - 判決日期：2002年6月24日 ### 案情摘要 原告人CHAN CHING KIT KATHERINE與第一被告LAM SIK SHI曾為夫妻，於1996年離婚。原告人於婚姻訴訟中獲得針對第一被告的港幣1,200萬元整筆付款命令。因第一被告未能按時支付款項，原告人於1998年10月12日就第一被告在涉案物業（香港霎東街4號地下）的半份業權取得了一項絕對押記令 (charging order absolute)。該物業由第一被告與第二被告LAM SIK YING（第一被告的同父異母兄弟）以共有業權 (tenants in common) 方式共同持有。原告人現根據《物業分劃條例》（香港法例第352章）申請出售整個物業，而非僅出售第一被告的半份業權。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於原告人作為押記令的衡平法承押人 (equitable chargee)，是否有資格根據《物業分劃條例》（香港法例第352章）申請出售整個物業。原告人主張條例中「任何對該物業有權益的人」的措辭足夠廣泛，應包括衡平法承押人。被告人則認為，根據條例的立法歷史和意圖，該條文應僅限於共同擁有人或具有佔有權和取消贖回權 (foreclosure) 的法定承按人 (legal mortgagee)。 ### 判決理由 法官採納了「知情解釋規則」(informed interpretation rule)，認為《物業分劃條例》第3(1)條中「任何對該物業有權益的人」的字面意義存在疑問。透過審視條例的立法前歷史 (pre-enacting history) 和立法歷史 (enacting history)，法官指出，在條例制定前，只有共同擁有人或具有佔有權和取消贖回權的法定承按人有資格申請分劃或出售。條例的制定目的並非擴大合資格申請人的範圍。此外，法官應用了「不輕率改變法律的推定」(presumption against casual change in the law) 原則，認為立法機關不太可能以如此隨意的方式引入如此重要的法律變革。因此，法官裁定衡平法承押人不屬於條例下合資格申請出售整個物業的人。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了《物業分劃條例》（香港法例第352章）第2、3、4、6及7條。法官在分析立法歷史時，參考了Trainor J在Pun Jong Sau v. Poon Wing Kong [1977-1979] HKC 210一案中的觀點，該案闡述了分劃法的歷史發展。此外，法官亦討論了Midland Bank plc v. Pike [1988] 2 All ER 434一案，但認為該案所涉的《1925年財產法》第30(1)條與本案條例並非同類法規 (in pari materia)，故不適用。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了原告人根據《物業分劃條例》申請出售整個物業的請求。然而，法庭批准了原告人提出的替代申請，命令委任一名接管人 (receiver) 以衡平法執行 (equitable execution) 的方式，收取第一被告在物業租金收入中的份額。關於訟費，法庭頒布了臨時命令，原告人須支付第二被告75%的訟費，並支付第一被告一半的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決澄清了香港《物業分劃條例》下「對該物業有權益的人」的解釋，明確衡平法承押人（無佔有權或取消贖回權）不具備申請出售整個物業的資格。這強調了在解釋模糊的法律條文時，立法歷史和「不輕率改變法律的推定」的重要性。判決也顯示，即使主要申請被駁回，法庭仍可能考慮並批准替代的執行命令，如委任接管人以收取租金收入。 --- ### 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: CHAN CHING KIT KATHERINE v LAM SIK SHI and LAM SIK YING - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Kwan J - Date of Judgment: 24 June 2002 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, CHAN CHING KIT KATHERINE, and the 1st defendant, LAM SIK SHI, were formerly husband and wife, divorcing in 1996. The plaintiff obtained a lump sum payment order of HK$12 million against the 1st defendant in matrimonial proceedings. Due to the 1st defendant's failure to pay, the plaintiff obtained a charging order absolute on 12 October 1998 over the 1st defendant's half share in the property at Ground Floor, 4 Sharp Street East, Hong Kong. This property was held by the 1st and 2nd defendants (the 1st defendant's half-brother) as tenants in common. The plaintiff sought an order for sale of the entire property under the Partition Ordinance (Cap. 352), not just the 1st defendant's half share. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the plaintiff, as an equitable chargee by virtue of a charging order, had the locus standi to seek an order for sale of the entire property under the Partition Ordinance (Cap. 352). The plaintiff contended that the phrase "any person interested in such property" in the Ordinance was broad enough to include an equitable chargee. The defendants argued that, considering the legislative history and intent of the Ordinance, this provision should be limited to co-owners or legal mortgagees with rights of possession and foreclosure. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge adopted the "informed interpretation rule," finding that the literal meaning of "any person interested in such property" in section 3(1) of the Partition Ordinance was doubtful. By examining the pre-enacting history and enacting history of the Ordinance, the judge noted that prior to its enactment, only co-owners or legal mortgagees with rights of possession and foreclosure were eligible to apply for partition or sale. The Ordinance was not intended to broaden the class of eligible applicants. Furthermore, the judge applied the "presumption against casual change in the law," concluding that it was improbable for such a significant legal change to be introduced in a casual manner. Therefore, the judge ruled that an equitable chargee without rights of possession or foreclosure is not an eligible person to apply for the sale of the entire property under the Ordinance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment primarily relied on sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Partition Ordinance (Cap. 352). In analyzing the legislative history, the judge referred to Trainor J's observations in Pun Jong Sau v. Poon Wing Kong [1977-1979] HKC 210, which discussed the historical development of partition law. The judge also considered Midland Bank plc v. Pike [1988] 2 All ER 434 but determined that section 30(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, involved in that case, was not in pari materia with the Partition Ordinance and thus not applicable. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an order for sale of the entire property under the Partition Ordinance. However, the court granted the plaintiff's alternative application, ordering the appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution to receive the 1st defendant's share of the rental income from the property. Regarding costs, a costs nisi order was made for the plaintiff to pay 75% of the 2nd defendant's costs and half of the 1st defendant's costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the interpretation of "any person interested in such property" under Hong Kong's Partition Ordinance, establishing that an equitable chargee (without rights of possession or foreclosure) is not eligible to apply for the sale of the entire property. It underscores the importance of legislative history and the "presumption against casual change in the law" in interpreting ambiguous statutory provisions. The decision also illustrates that even if a primary application is dismissed, the court may still grant alternative enforcement orders, such as the appointment of a receiver to collect rental income. --- ### 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.