管委會委員人數及個別委員責任？申索駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：何振聲 訴 毛寶康 及 其他 - 法院：土地審裁處 (Lands Tribunal) - 法官：黃一鳴暫委法官 - 判決日期：2003年6月9日 ### 案情摘要 申請人為何振聲，為黃埔新邨第一期佳貴樓的業主，亦是業主立案法團第十一屆管理委員會（下稱「管委會」）委員。第一答辯人毛寶康是管委會主席，第四答辯人是秘書，第七答辯人是司庫。第五、第六及第八答辯人是第四及第七答辯人的授權人。申請人提出多項指控，認為答辯人違反《建築物管理條例》（下稱「該條例」），導致其代理法團執行的事務無效，並要求答辯人承擔損失。本案主要處理申請人對第一、第四至第八答辯人的申請，而對第二及第三答辯人的申請已於早前撤銷。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於管委會委員人數是否不足，以及個別答辯人是否違反《建築物管理條例》的相關規定，包括未有及時向土地註冊處更改資料、未聘請會計師核數、不當管理公用部分（地下小巷及電掣房）、不合理對待管理員、未按時召開會議、未派送決議副本、未按時換屆、不當處理招標事宜、聘用未持保安證人士及未依期完成電力測試等。申請人認為這些違規行為導致答辯人代理法團執行的事務無效，並須承擔責任。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了《建築物管理條例》及公契的相關條文。關於管委會人數，法庭裁定公契第7條僅規定委員人數「不多於」19人，而非必須為19人，且該條例附表2第1(a)(iii)條規定委員人數須不少於9人，而管委會有15名委員，故人數並無不足。對於未向土地註冊處更改資料，法庭認為第四答辯人雖違反該條例第12(3)條，但土地審裁處無權判罰刑事罪行，且該違規不影響其他事務的有效性。法庭強調，許多指控涉及法團整體責任，而非個別委員責任，故申請人應向法團而非個別答辯人提出訴訟。對於公用部分管理，法庭裁定地下小巷屬公用部分，法團有權管理及改善衛生。對於緊急情況下的決策，法庭認為在緊急情況下，透過電話獲得委員批准並無抵觸條例。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定申請人所有申請理據均不成立，撤銷申請人對第一及第四至第八答辯人的申請。法庭頒令申請人須支付第一及第四至第八答辯人是次申請的訟費，包括大律師證書，以區域法院基準釐定。如雙方未能就數額達成協議，則由法庭評定。如與訟任何一方不在14天內就訟費提出申請，則此項臨時訟費命令作實。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在建築物管理糾紛中，應區分業主立案法團的整體責任與個別管理委員會委員的個人責任。許多涉及法團運作和管理的指控，若非有明確證據證明個別委員的個人過失或不當行為，應向法團整體提出訴訟。此外，法庭亦指出土地審裁處無權處理刑事罪行，且在緊急情況下，管理委員會可採取靈活的決策方式，不一定嚴格遵循會議通知期限。 --- ### 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: Ho Chun Sing v Mo Po Hong and Others - Court: Lands Tribunal - Judge: Deputy Judge Wong Yat Ming - Date of Judgment: 9 June 2003 ### Factual Background The applicant, Ho Chun Sing, is a registered owner of a unit in Block Kai Kwai, Whampoa Garden Phase 1, and a member of the 11th Management Committee (the "MC") of the Owners' Incorporation. The 1st respondent, Mo Po Hong, is the Chairman of the MC, the 4th respondent is the Secretary, and the 7th respondent is the Treasurer. The 5th, 6th, and 8th respondents are proxies for the 4th and 7th respondents. The applicant raised numerous allegations, claiming that the respondents violated the Building Management Ordinance (the "Ordinance"), rendering their actions on behalf of the Owners' Incorporation invalid, and sought to hold them liable for damages. This case primarily concerns the applicant's claims against the 1st, 4th to 8th respondents, as the claims against the 2nd and 3rd respondents were previously withdrawn. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in this case were whether the MC had an insufficient number of members, and whether individual respondents violated relevant provisions of the Building Management Ordinance. Allegations included failure to update information with the Land Registry, failure to appoint an auditor, improper management of common parts (underground alley and electrical switch room), unreasonable treatment of a security guard, failure to hold meetings on time, failure to distribute resolution copies, failure to hold elections on time, improper handling of tender matters, employment of security guards without proper licenses, and failure to complete electricity tests on schedule. The applicant contended that these violations rendered the respondents' actions on behalf of the Owners' Incorporation invalid and that they should be held responsible. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Building Management Ordinance and the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC). Regarding the number of MC members, the court ruled that Clause 7 of the DMC only stipulated "not more than" 19 members, not a mandatory 19, and Schedule 2, Section 1(a)(iii) of the Ordinance required no fewer than 9 members. With 15 members, the MC was not understaffed. For failure to update Land Registry information, the court found the 4th respondent violated Section 12(3) of the Ordinance, but the Lands Tribunal lacked jurisdiction for criminal penalties, and this violation did not invalidate other actions. The court emphasized that many allegations concerned the collective responsibility of the Owners' Incorporation, not individual members, and thus the applicant should have sued the Incorporation. For common parts management, the court ruled the underground alley was a common part, and the Incorporation had the right to manage and improve its sanitation. For emergency decisions, the court found that obtaining approval from members via telephone in urgent situations did not contravene the Ordinance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court ruled that all of the applicant's grounds were unfounded and dismissed the applicant's claims against the 1st and 4th to 8th respondents. The court ordered the applicant to pay the costs of the application to the 1st and 4th to 8th respondents, including counsel's fees, to be assessed on the District Court scale. If the parties failed to agree on the amount, it would be assessed by the court. This interim costs order would become final if no party applied for costs within 14 days. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the distinction between the collective responsibility of an Owners' Incorporation and the individual liability of its Management Committee members in building management disputes. Many allegations concerning the operation and management of the Incorporation, unless there is clear evidence of individual members' personal negligence or misconduct, should be brought against the Incorporation as a whole. Furthermore, the court clarified that the Lands Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to handle criminal offenses, and in emergency situations, the Management Committee may adopt flexible decision-making methods, not necessarily adhering strictly to meeting notice periods. --- ### 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.