收回物業訴訟中非租客能否加入為被告？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited v Wong Kwai Wing - 法院：區域法院 (District Court, DC) - 法官：林嘉樂暫委法官 (His Honour Judge Gary C C Lam) - 判決日期：2025年2月19日 ### 案情摘要 原告香港平民屋宇有限公司向被告Wong Kwai Wing提出收回物業（涉案處所）的訴訟，理由是租賃協議已終止。被告的兄弟Wong Kwai Keung（介入方）申請加入訴訟成為第二被告，聲稱他對涉案處所有獨立的佔用權。介入方提出多項理由支持其申請，包括他作為租賃協議附表所列的「租客家屬」身份、作為「認可居民」的資格、基於允諾禁反言 (promissory estoppel) 或衡平法上的財產禁反言 (proprietary estoppel) 的權利，以及基於《基本法》和《香港人權法案條例》的防禦理由。介入方還申請提交額外誓章以支持其加入申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於介入方Wong Kwai Keung是否有足夠的獨立權利或防禦理由，使其能夠被加入為收回物業訴訟的第二被告。介入方主張他對涉案處所有實質權益，包括基於租賃協議附表、認可居民身份、禁反言原則以及《基本法》和《香港人權法案條例》所保障的權利。原告則認為介入方並無獨立權利，其申請加入訴訟是毫無意義且徒勞的。 ### 判決理由 法庭在審理加入訴訟申請時，會採取寬鬆的態度以避免多重訴訟，但若申請明顯地毫無意義、徒勞無功或缺乏真誠，則不應批准。對於收回土地的訴訟，若申請人對佔用土地沒有真誠的獨立申索，其權利完全依賴於現有被告，則不應被加入。法庭認為，介入方作為租賃協議附表中的「租客家屬」，並不賦予其可強制執行的獨立權利。此外，介入方未能證明其為「認可居民」，且其對禁反言原則的依賴亦缺乏實質證據支持。關於《基本法》和《香港人權法案條例》的防禦，法庭指出，在沒有獨立私法權利的情況下，收回物業的決定通常被視為具相稱性 (proportionality)，且介入方未能提出足夠證據證明其個人情況構成「特殊困難」。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述加入訴訟的法律原則和相關權利： - Elysium Ltd v Sum Ka Kuen Dominic [2023] 5 HKC 508：確立了加入訴訟的酌情權和相關利益要求。 - Yu Wing Kan v Lau Shuk Lan [1990] 2 HKLR 583：明確了土地佔用訴訟中，申請人必須有真誠的獨立佔用權才能被加入。 - Cheung Lai Mui v Cheung Wai Shing & Anors (2021) 24 HKCFAR 116：闡述了衡平法上的財產禁反言的構成要件。 - Luo Xing Juan v Estate of Hui Shui See (2009) 12 HKCFAR 1：闡述了允諾禁反言的構成要件。 - Chim Sui Ping v Hong Kong Housing Authority, HCAL139/2009, 17 September 2012：討論了公屋收回物業的相稱性原則，指出在沒有私法權利的情況下，收回物業通常被視為相稱。 - Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC 465：強調了公共機構業主管理其物業的權利。 - Thurrock BC v West [2013] HLR 5：進一步闡述了在沒有租客或特許權人身份的情況下，人權防禦的極高門檻。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回了介入方Wong Kwai Keung要求加入訴訟的申請，以及其提交額外誓章的申請。法庭命令介入方支付原告因這兩項申請所產生的訟費，經簡易評定為港幣145,000元。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申，在收回物業的訴訟中，若非租客或特許權人，即使是租客家屬，也難以主張獨立的佔用權。法庭強調，在評估人權法案下的相稱性原則時，若申請人沒有私法上的佔用權利，其人權防禦的門檻將非常高。此外，法庭不會允許明顯地毫無意義或徒勞無功的加入訴訟申請，以避免浪費司法資源。 --- ### 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: The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited v Wong Kwai Wing - Court: District Court (DC) - Judge: His Honour Judge Gary C C Lam - Date of Judgment: 19 February 2025 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, The Hong Kong Settlers Housing Corporation Limited, brought an action against the defendant, Wong Kwai Wing, for possession of the property (the Premises) due to the termination of a tenancy agreement. The defendant's brother, Wong Kwai Keung (the intervener), applied to be joined as the second defendant, claiming an independent right to possession of the Premises. The intervener put forward several grounds for his application, including his status as a "Family of Tenant" listed in the tenancy agreement's Schedule, his qualification as an "approved occupier," rights based on promissory estoppel or proprietary estoppel, and defences under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The intervener also sought leave to file a supplemental affirmation. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute was whether the intervener, Wong Kwai Keung, had sufficient independent rights or defences to be joined as the second defendant in the possession action. The intervener argued for a substantive interest in the Premises based on his listing in the tenancy agreement's Schedule, his status as an approved occupier, estoppel principles, and rights protected by the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The plaintiff contended that the intervener had no independent rights and that his joinder application was pointless and futile. ### Ratio Decidendi While a liberal approach is generally adopted for joinder applications to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, such an application should be dismissed if it is plainly and obviously pointless, futile, or not bona fide. In a possession action, an applicant must have a bona fide independent claim to possession; if their rights are wholly dependent on the existing defendant, they should not be joined. The court found that the intervener's listing as "Family of Tenant" in the tenancy agreement's Schedule did not confer enforceable independent rights. Furthermore, the intervener failed to provide evidence of being an "approved settler" or "approved occupier," and his reliance on estoppel principles lacked substantive support. Regarding defences under the Basic Law and Bill of Rights, the court noted that where an occupant has no private law right to remain, an eviction decision is generally considered proportionate, and the intervener failed to demonstrate "exceptional hardship." ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to elaborate on the legal principles governing joinder applications and related rights: - Elysium Ltd v Sum Ka Kuen Dominic [2023] 5 HKC 508: Established the discretionary nature of joinder and the requirement for a direct interest. - Yu Wing Kan v Lau Shuk Lan [1990] 2 HKLR 583: Clarified that a person seeking to be joined in a possession action must have a bona fide independent claim to possession. - Cheung Lai Mui v Cheung Wai Shing & Anors (2021) 24 HKCFAR 116: Outlined the requirements for proprietary estoppel. - Luo Xing Juan v Estate of Hui Shui See (2009) 12 HKCFAR 1: Explained the elements of promissory estoppel. - Chim Sui Ping v Hong Kong Housing Authority, HCAL139/2009, 17 September 2012: Discussed the proportionality principle in public housing evictions, stating that without private law rights, eviction is generally proportionate. - Kay v Lambeth LBC [2006] 2 AC 465: Emphasized the right of public authority landlords to manage their property. - Thurrock BC v West [2013] HLR 5: Further elaborated on the high threshold for human rights defences in cases where there is no tenancy or license. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the intervener Wong Kwai Keung's application to be joined as a defendant and his application for leave to file a supplemental affirmation. The intervener was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs for both summonses, summarily assessed at HK$145,000. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in possession actions, individuals who are not tenants or licensees, even if listed as family members, generally cannot assert independent rights to possession. The court emphasized that the threshold for a human rights defence based on proportionality is very high when the applicant lacks a private law right to occupy. Furthermore, the court will not permit joinder applications that are plainly pointless or futile, to avoid wasting judicial resources. --- ### 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.