遺產管理人可否出售物業？？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：鄧錦祥 v SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 及 SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v CAFE HAPPY POST LIMITED 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：梁國安暫委法官 - 判決日期：2022年7月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩宗合併處理的訴訟。HCA 1611/2019由鄧錦祥（「鄧」）提出，旨在宣告一項物業的買賣及轉讓無效。該物業（「該物業」）原由鄧的先人鄧忠修（「TCS」）擁有，TCS於1998年去世後，鄧與另一人獲委任為遺產管理人。他們於2009年將該物業售予SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LIMITED（「Source View」）。隨後，Source View將該物業租賃予鄧代表其公司Café Happy Post Limited。租約期滿後，因欠租等違約行為，Source View向土地審裁處申請收回物業及追討欠租，該案後轉移至高等法院成為HCA 2275/2019。鄧在HCA 2275/2019中提出反申索，內容與其在HCA 1611/2019中的申索相同。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於：(1) 該物業的買賣及轉讓是否因違反新批地契約（New Grant）的特別條款而無效；(2) 鄧作為遺產管理人是否有權出售該物業；(3) 鄧聲稱存在一項口頭協議，賦予他回購該物業的選擇權，該協議是否有效及可執行。Source View則主張鄧的申索和抗辯均無合理訴訟因由，屬瑣屑無聊、無理取鬧及濫用程序，應予剔除。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析指，鄧關於違反新批地契約的論點缺乏依據，因地政總署早於1972年已確認所有條件均已遵守。關於遺產管理人的權力，法庭引用《遺囑認證及遺產管理條例》（Probate and Administration Ordinance, Cap 10）第62條及第54條，確認遺產管理人有權出售遺產物業，並依據《受託人條例》（Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29）第2及13條，指出遺產管理人亦屬受託人，有權出售物業。鄧對其自身權力的質疑在法律上站不住腳。至於口頭回購選擇權，法庭認為其缺乏書面證據，且因涉及土地權益，根據《物業轉易及財產條例》（Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap 219）第3(1)及4(1)條屬無效及不可強制執行，同時也因條款不確定而無法構成具約束力的合約義務。因此，鄧的所有抗辯和申索均無法律依據。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《遺囑認證及遺產管理條例》（Probate and Administration Ordinance, Cap 10）第54條及第62條，確立遺產管理人出售遺產物業的權力。同時引用《受託人條例》（Trustee Ordinance, Cap 29）第2條及第13條，闡明遺產管理人作為受託人出售物業的權限。此外，亦引用《物業轉易及財產條例》（Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, Cap 219）第3(1)條及第4(1)條，說明涉及土地權益的協議必須以書面形式訂立方為有效。案例方面，引用了Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489，確立上訴時接納新證據的原則，以及Stromdale and Ball Ltd v Burden [1952] Ch 223，支持口頭協議無效的論點。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回鄧錦祥在兩宗案件中的上訴。在HCA 2275/2019中，法庭維持對鄧錦祥、Happy Post Enterprise及Willcocks的簡易判決，命令他們在28天內交出物業的空置管有權，並支付自2021年1月5日起每月港幣48,000元的代租金。鄧的反申索被剔除。在HCA 1611/2019中，鄧的申索被剔除，案件被駁回。鄧須以彌償基準支付Source View的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了遺產管理人出售遺產物業的法定權力，以及涉及土地權益的合約必須符合書面形式的要求。同時，法庭強調了簡易判決和剔除申索的原則，即當申索或抗辯明顯缺乏合理訴訟因由、瑣屑無聊、無理取鬧或構成濫用程序時，法院可直接作出判決或剔除。本案判決對未來涉及遺產物業處置及土地權益口頭協議的案件具有參考意義。 --- ### 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: Tang Kam Cheung v SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LIMITED and SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LIMITED v CAFE HAPPY POST LIMITED and Others - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Leung - Date of Judgment: 29 July 2022 ### Factual Background This case involves two consolidated actions. HCA 1611/2019 was initiated by Tang Kam Cheung ("Tang") seeking a declaration that the sale and assignment of a property were null and void. The property ("the Property") was originally owned by Tang's ancestor, Tang Chung Shau ("TCS"). After TCS's death in 1998, Tang and another person were appointed administrators of the estate. They sold the Property to SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LIMITED ("Source View") in 2009. Subsequently, Source View leased the Property to Café Happy Post Limited, represented by Tang. After the tenancy expired, due to breaches including non-payment of rent, Source View applied to the Lands Tribunal for arrears of rent and possession, which was later transferred to the High Court as HCA 2275/2019. Tang filed a counterclaim in HCA 2275/2019 mirroring his claim in HCA 1611/2019. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues in dispute were: (1) whether the sale and assignment of the Property were null and void due to a breach of special conditions under the New Grant; (2) whether Tang, as an administrator of the estate, had the authority to sell the Property; and (3) whether an alleged oral agreement, granting Tang an option to buy back the Property, was valid and enforceable. Source View contended that Tang's claims and defences disclosed no reasonable cause of action, were frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and should be struck out. ### Ratio Decidendi The court's analysis found Tang's contention regarding the breach of the New Grant to be without merit, as the Lands Department had confirmed compliance with all conditions in 1972. Regarding the administrators' authority, the court referred to sections 62 and 54 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 10), confirming that administrators have the power to dispose of estate property. Furthermore, under sections 2 and 13 of the Trustee Ordinance (Cap 29), an administrator is considered a trustee with the power of sale. Tang's self-serving query about his own authority was legally unfounded. Concerning the alleged oral buy-back option, the court ruled it was unenforceable due to lack of written evidence and, as it concerned an interest in land, was null and void under sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap 219). It also suffered from uncertainty, preventing it from being a binding contractual obligation. Thus, all of Tang's defences and claims lacked legal merit. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited sections 54 and 62 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 10), establishing the power of personal representatives to dispose of estate property. It also cited sections 2 and 13 of the Trustee Ordinance (Cap 29), clarifying that personal representatives are trustees with powers of sale. Furthermore, sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap 219) were cited, stipulating that agreements concerning interests in land must be in writing to be valid. Case law cited included Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489, which sets out principles for admitting new evidence on appeal, and Stromdale and Ball Ltd v Burden [1952] Ch 223, supporting the argument that oral agreements concerning land interests are invalid. ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed Tang Kam Cheung's appeals in both actions. In HCA 2275/2019, the summary judgment against Tang, Happy Post Enterprise, and Willcocks was upheld, ordering them to deliver vacant possession of the Property within 28 days and pay mesne profits of HK$48,000 per month from 5 January 2021. Tang's counterclaim was struck out. In HCA 1611/2019, Tang's claim was struck out, and the action was dismissed. Tang was ordered to pay Source View's costs on an indemnity basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the statutory power of administrators to dispose of estate property and the requirement for contracts involving interests in land to be in writing. It also underscores the principles for summary judgment and striking out claims, where claims or defences that are clearly without reasonable cause of action, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process can be summarily dealt with. The decision provides guidance for future cases involving the disposition of estate property and alleged oral agreements concerning land interests. --- ### 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.