鯉景灣 1994 Assignment

網頁制作及更新狀況

制作日期： 2020 年 2 月 25 日更新日期： 2020 年 12 月 25 日
警方個案編號

LM (522/17) in CP HKI EDIST/1-70/74 LM (843/14) in HK/E 18/2/1
案件發生日期

1994 年 4 月 19 日或相近日期
案件發生地點

中環孖士打律師樓 (Johnson Stoke & Master) 辦公室及／或太古地產 (Swire Properties Ltd.) 辦公室

案件涉及罪行

5.1	註冊摘要及其他文件被不誠實毀滅等 (土地註冊條例第 24 條)
5.2	偽造的罪行 (刑事罪行條例第 71 條)
5.3	使用虛假文書的罪行 (刑事罪行條例第 73 條)
5.4	管有虛假文書的罪行 (刑事罪行條例第 75 條)
5.5	屬刑事罪的管有 (刑事罪行條例第 77 條)
5.6	以欺騙手段逃避法律責任 (盜竊罪條例第 18B 條)
5.7	協助犯，教唆犯及從犯 (刑事訴訟程序條例第 89 條)
5.8	串謀罪 (刑事罪行條例第 159A 條)

警方檢控罪行

罪行涉及人士

7.1	Braemar West Limited
7.2	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司 Lei King Wan (Management) Limited
7.3	Robert Keith Ross FULLERTON
7.4	Stephen Guy SPURR
7.5	Jolyon Charles CULBERTSON
7.6	Keith Graham KERR
7.7	Michael John MOIR
7.8	Johnson Stokes & Master
7.9	Audrey O.Y. Au 區愷宜
7.10	陳穎媛
7.11	FAN Chor Fun, Gemini, 范楚芬
7.12	吳啟東
7.13	黃世傑
7.14	Michelle Low (劉美璇)
7.15	Fanny Lung (龍雁儀)
7.16	Patrick Tang (鄧偉政)
7.17	YIP Hoi Fan (葉海帆),
7.18	MA Suk Ching (馬淑貞)
7.19	TO Wai Yip, Adrain (杜偉業)
7.20	WONG Mei (王湄)
7.21	ONGLEY Gordon James
7.22	Lee Kwok Law, Solicitors and Notaries
7.23	史樂山 SLOSAR John Robert
7.24	BRADLEY Guy Martin Coutts 白德利

警方檢控人士

證據

9.1	建築物管理條例在 1992 - 1993 年修訂時間紀錄
9.2	立法局之 15/7/1992 會議紀錄
9.3	立法局之 5/5/1993 會議紀錄
9.4	建築物管理條例之已通過修訂條文 (L.N. 27/1993)
9.5	鯉景灣業主代表之 7/5/1993日會議紀錄
9.6	鯉景灣業主代表之 9/7/1993日會議紀錄
9.7	鯉景灣業主代表之 6/1/1994日會議紀錄
9.8	鯉景灣 A 期之保留地方 (Retained Area) 之 1994 年物業轉讓契約 (Assignment)
9.9	鯉景灣 B 期之保留地方 (Retained Area) 之 1994 年物業轉讓契約 (Assignment)
9.10	鯉景灣 C 期之保留地方 (Retained Area) 之 1994 年物業轉讓契約 (Assignment)
9.11	鯉景灣 D 期之保留地方 (Retained Area) 之 1994 年物業轉讓契約 (Assignment)
9.12	鯉景灣逸華閣 2 樓 G 室之平台土地註冊紀錄
9.13	鯉景灣業主之共有物業管理資金 1994 年核數財務報告（核數師：羅兵咸會計師事務所）
9.14	鯉景灣 A 期之大廈公契
9.15	鯉景灣 B 期之大廈公契
9.16	鯉景灣 C 期之大廈公契
9.17	鯉景灣 D 期之大廈公契
9.18	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之公司組織章程和大綱 (Memorandum and Articles of Association)
9.19	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之 1994/95 年之周年申報表 (Annual Reture)
9.20	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司（鯉景灣公契之指定管理公司＜太古地產之附屬公司＞）安排之法律意見＜孖士打律師樓信件日期 2005 年 5 月 21 日＞
9.21	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司（鯉景灣公契之指定管理公司＜太古地產之附屬公司＞）安排之法律意見＜李郭羅律師行信件日期 2010 年 9 月 20 日＞
9.22	何超光之 2010 年 12 月 15 日觀察／評論／疑問書回覆李郭羅律師行之 2010 年 9 月 20 日法律意見
9.23	何超光發給鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之前董事、Michael PRICE 之 3/2/2014 電郵
9.24	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之前董事、Michael PRICE 發給何超光之 6/6/2014 電郵
9.25	何超光與鯉景灣管理處總物業資產經理、王國柱、的對話紀錄以 4/12/2014 電郵方式確認。
9.26	鯉景灣管理處張貼大堂之 19/12/2014 公開信
9.27	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之董事、鄧偉政、向何超光發出之 18/3/2015 信件
9.28	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之董事、鄧偉政、向何超光發出之 14/8/2015 信件
9.29	鯉景灣 B 期與逸華閣 2 樓 G 室相連平台（Flat Roof ）業權之歷任註冊業主在土地註冊處之 11/2/2016 紀錄
9.30	鯉景灣 B 期外牆業權之歷任註冊業主在土地註冊處之 21/8/2016 紀錄
9.31	何超光之草稿信，建議鯉景灣 C 期業主代表召集人發給發展商、Braemar West Ltd.、和鯉景灣物業管理有限公司
9.32	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之董事、鄧偉政、向鯉景灣 C 期業主代表召集人發出之 18/8/2016 信件
9.33	鯉景灣 C 期業主代表召集人向鯉景灣物業管理有限公司發出之 1/8/2016 信件
9.34	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司向鯉景灣 C 期業主代表召集人和副召集人發出之 1/9/2016 信件
9.35	何超光向警務處處長發出 6/9/2016 電郵提及妨礙司法公正等罪行
9.36	何超光發給太古集團主席、史樂山、之 23/6/2017 電郵
9.37	何超光向民政事務總署申請由退休法官主持與鯉景灣物業管理有限公司調解會議之 14/5/2019 申請書
9.38	民政事務總署通知何超光，表示鯉景灣物業管理有限公司拒絕出席由退休法官主持之調解會議 30/8/2019 通知書
9.39	何超光收到太古地產集團葉海帆之 10/3/2020 10 時 17 分電郵
9.40	何超光收到太古地產集團葉海帆之 10/3/2020 10 時 19 分電郵
9.41	何超光收到太古地產集團葉海帆之 10/3/2020 10 時 20 分電郵
9.42	何超光收到警察投訴科之 10/3/2020 CAPO HKI RN 20000256 電郵
9.43	何超光收到警察投訴科之 12/3/2020 CAPO HKI RN 20000256 電郵
9.44	太古股份有限公司之 2000 年度股東用年報告
9.45	太古股份有限公司之 2011 年度股東用年報告
9.46	太古地產有限公司之 2011 年度股東周年報告

涉及法律依據

10.1	Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597 （Wikipedia 資料）
10.2	Paal Wilson v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 AC 384 （www.casebooks.eu 資料）
10.3	Bristol & West BS v Mothew [1998] Ch1 (www.bailii.org 資料）
10.4	Parker v McKenna [1874] LR 10 Ch App 966 （Wikipedia 資料）
10.5	New Zealand Netherlands Society 'Oranje' Inc. v Kuys [1973] 1 WLR 1126 （www.casemine.com 資料）
10.6	Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 （www.bailii.org 資料）
10.7	Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid [1993] UKPC 36 （www.bailii.org 資料）
10.8	Biffa Waste Services Limited and other v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GMBH and others [2009] 3 WLR 324 （www.bailii.org 資料）
10.9	Henry v Hammond [1913] 2 KB 515 （www.swarb.co.uk 資料
10.10	Lam Soon Trademark Ltd. v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [FACV 25/2005］
10.11	中華人民共和國憲法和中華人民共和國香港特別行政區基本法
10.12	WESTDEUTSCHE LANDESBANK GIROZENTRALE v COUNCIL OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON [1996] 2 AC669 (www.bailii.org 資料)
10.13	Thimbleby & Co. v. Paragon Finance PLC [1999] 1 AL ER 400 (www.bailii.org 資料)
10.14	Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v Nattrass [1971] UKHL 1
10.15	Rolling Development Ltd. v Ease King Ltd and other [CACV 128/1997]
10.16	P. & A. Swift Investments (A Firm) v. Combined English Stores Group PLC [1989] 1 AC 632. (www.bailii.org 資料)
10.17	Aberdeen Winner Investment Co. Ltd. v The Incorporated Owners of Albert House [CACV 42/2004 & CACV 236/2004]
10.18	Kowloon Development Finance Ltd. v Pendex Industries Ltd. and others [FACV 21/2012]
10.19	China National Star Petroleum Company v. Tor Drilling (UK) Ltd [2002] ScotCS 86 (20th March, 2002) （www.bailii.org 資料）
10.20	Veronica Wagstaff and Stephen Wagstaff v Commissioner for Her Majestic’s Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 43 (TC) （www.bailii.org 資料）
10.21	Hoh Hah Keyet v Artimax Investment Ltd. and others [HCA1163/2013]
10.22	HKSAR v Ma Kwok Fai [FACC 1/2013]

舉報案情

Swire Properties Ltd. (SPL) ( a listed company in Hong Kong Stock Exchange having a listing number 1972) bought 4 pieces of land having inland lot numbers 8672, 8673, 8674 and 8612 via SPL’s subsidiary, Braemar West Ltd. (BWL) from Hong Kong Government in 1985 for the purpose of developing the residential estate targeted to sell the development to the public.

The development was completed in 1988/89 and named as Lei King Wan (LKW). Before the process of the individual units handing over to the pre-sale purchasers, BWL needed to had prepared all the concerned documents for the purchasers to execute. The first set of documents in bundle including Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) and Assignment.

Since SPL is one of the largest real estate developers in Hong Kong and has a fantastic knowledgeable team of legal professions especially in Land and Property law. They are fully aware of the loophole in Land and Property Law and make use of their knowledge to prepare the DMC in their favour having the terms of no legal obligation to bear the management fee, repairing cost and/or others for the Retained Area and/or those units remained un-sold.

At the same time or some other time not far from the time of executing the documents for handing over the units to those purchasers under the pre-sale scheme, BWL silently appointed Urban Property Management Limited (UPML, formerly known as Mei Foo Management Ltd.) as their sub-agent to provide day to day estate management services for LKW. Up to today, BWL or SPL never publicly or privately announces this appointment to the owners of LKW.

The Government was fully aware of those unfair terms enacted in DMC and proposed a bill, namely Multi-Storey Building (Owners Incorporation) (Amendment) Bill 1992, on July 3, 1992 which was passed on May 5, 1993. One of the important amendments is to overrule those unfair terms enacted in DMC.

SPL is fully aware of the negative impact on their side upon the operation of the said legislative amendments. So SPL informed then Owners Representatives of LKW about transferring the ownership of the external wall of LKW to Lei King Wan (Management) Ltd. (LKWML) by using the reason of enforcing those owners to remove the unauthorized structure. Several months later, LKWML informed then Owners Representative of LKW that LKWML would start to ask those Flat Roof tenants to pay the management fee upon the amendments, in operation, on Building Management Ordinance, being the name of the Ordinance after the bill, Multi-Storey Building (Owners Incorporation) (Amendment) Bill 1992, being passed.

Former Commissioner of Police, Mr. Tsang Yam Pui, retired in December 2003 and joined NWS Holdings Ltd. (a listed company having the listing number 659), then parent company of UPML, in June 2004 as Executive Director. Coincidentally, Owners Representative Committee of LKW started to discuss the major renovation in the same year.

In January 2005, Paul Ho (PH) was approached by Jenny Wong, then an owners representative of site B of LKW during PH’s usual morning exercise and was presented a bundle of documents relating to the major renovation. PH started to work with other owners of LKW to review those documents and investigate the case. In July 2005, Tommy Lee, then manager of LKW management office, chaired a meeting for the owners of LKW and raised a letter issued by Johnson Stokes and Master saying that the ownership of external wall was transferred to all the owners of LKW and therefore all the owners of LKW are responsible to repair the external wall. In fact, those individual owners of LKW had no knowledge and do not aware of transferring the ownership of Retained Area from BWL to LKWML. In September/ October 2005, PH chaired another meeting for the owners of LKW to understand the ownership of external wall. During the meeting, Michael PRICE, then a director of LKWML announced that the major renovation would not proceed in 5 – 10 years. After that, no more discussion on the issue of major renovation was conducted.

PH asked Tommy Lee to give a copy of the concerned Assignment for PH’s study and discovered that Retained Area including external wall was assigned to LKWML as trustee for and on behalf of all the owners of LKW. PH argues the legitimacy of the transaction with SPL for years up to now. PH also reported to Police for a crime of false documents, but Police never gives a reasonable reply to PH.

LKWML from time to time uses this Assignment as a legal base to convince the owners of LKW to initialize the major renovation. LKWML also appointed Lee Kwok Law, Solicitors and Notaries, (LKL) to provide legal opinion on Retained Area issue. LKL delivered their legal opinion to Fion Chen, then Senior Manager of LKW management office. PH reviewed LKW’s legal opinion and express his Observation, Comments and/or Queries in writing which was forwarded to Fion Chen for the purpose of passing to LKL for LKL’s response. So far, no response from LKL was available up to now.

Fion Chen resigned from the service for LKW, the issue of major renovation was slow down in discussion during the period under the supervision of K.C. Wong, then Chief Property Asset Manager. During this period of time, LKWML further seeks another legal opinion from Betty Wong (BW), a barrister, via Chung & Kwan, Solicitors. Until K.C. Wong was replaced by Thomas Ng, Chief Property Asset Manager of LKW management office, taking in charge of LKW management office. The major renovation discussions were resumed and pushed quite hard under the supervision of Thomas Ng together with Jacky Wong, Property Asset Manager of LKW management office.

講解案情

12.1		*以常理（common sense）來判斷1994 年之物業轉讓契約 (Assignments) 是否一份真確的法律文件*
	12.1.1	這 4 份物業轉讓契是由孖士打律師樓 (Johnson Stokes & Master) 準備好讓太古地產集團成員簽署
	12.1.2	這 4 份文件的簽署人是發展商、Braemar West Ltd. (BWL)、和公契指定經理人、鯉景灣物業管理有限公司以 (LKWML) 全體鯉景灣業主之授托人身份
	12.1.3	BWL 和 LKWML 是太古地產有限公司 (Swire Properties Limited ［香港交易所上市編號 1972］）之附屬公司
	12.1.4	BWL 和 LKWML 應該毫無疑問清楚知道這 4 份文件是真實合法之法律文件或是虛假文件
	12.1.5	何超光經常追問管理公司不同職級人員有關物業轉讓契是否真確法律文件，各人員經常回避問題。最後前董事被迫要正面回答問題，但是也採取回避手法。在收到何超光之無禮貌電郵，也要索取多些時間才回答。 Micheal PRICE 在 14/2/2014 電郵回覆說“The Deed of Assignment dated 14th April, 1994 is a proper and valid legal document“。當 PRICE 以這張電郵回答後，在半年內離職，並返回家鄉、英國。如何解讀這個情況呢？首先要了解 PRICE 在太古地產的職位是高級或是低級職員。他的職級名銜是Group Estate Manager of Swire Properties Ltd. 兼鯉景灣物業管理有限公司董事，這個職級是中上管理階層，通常離職通知期需要有 3 至 6 個月通知，剛好他的離職時間與發出 14/2/2014 電郵時間吻合。另外，他在 2005／2006 年與我在太古城 2 樓 coffee 檔討論如何解決 2005 年的紛爭時，感覺他是一位很敏感的人士，他當時用他的眼睛觀察我穿那件工作多袋背心，相信他想知道我有沒有收藏錄音機在我的衣袋內，但他沒有提出這個問題。我當然有將筆型錄音機放在我的衣袋內，只是他沒有察覺到。除此之外，他也是前政府官員（這是傳聞）、測量師、前行政長官選舉委員會委員（2006 年）。故此我相信他是在上司強迫下才發出 14/2/2014 電郵，如果他完全相信他的 14/2/2014 電郵是真實無誤，他可在不同場合或電郵早已確定，不需在發出 14/2/2014 電郵後離職。
	12.1.6	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司董事、鄧偉政、在其 18/3/2015 信件也逃避確定 1994 年物業轉讓契是一份真實法律文件
	12.1.7	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司董事、鄧偉政、在其 14/8/2015 信件也逃避確定 1994 年物業轉讓契是一份真實法律文件
	12.1.8	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司董事、鄧偉政、在其 18/8/2016 信件也逃避確定 1994 年物業轉讓契是一份真實法律文件
	12.1.9	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司高級物業資產經理、張景維、在其 11/9/2016 信件也逃避確定 1994 年物業轉讓契是一份真實法律文件
		Need to add comments on PH email to SPL chairman re defamation, litigation, criminal defamation and so on
	12.1.10	何超光向民政事務總署申請由退休法官主持與鯉景灣物業管理有限公司調解會議，並應退休法官要求呈交相關證據作出評估。當退休法官審閱呈交證據後，指示秘書處項目經理（法律）發信給鯉景灣物業管理有限公司要求出席調解會議，但被鯉景灣管理有限公司拒絕出席會議。其後，民政事務總署「解決大廈管理爭議服務」秘書處回覆何超光有關鯉景灣管理有限公司拒絕出席會議的決定
	結論	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司不同職級負責人有同一行為，就是逃避確認 1994 年物業轉讓契是一份真確法律文件。以邏輯或常理來判斷，那 4 份物業轉讓契是虛假文件。因為任何一位負責人知道，將一份虛假法律文件說成真實法律文件，該人士將會觸犯欺詐罪。

12.2		*以合約法（Contract law）來判斷 1994 年之物業轉讓契約 (Assignments) 是否一份真確的法律文件*
	12.2.1	何謂合約？法官 Blackburn J. 在 Smith v Hughes [1871] LR 6 QB 597 （Wikipedia 資料）案說 'If, whatever a man's real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to the terms proposed by the other party, and that other party upon that belief enters into the contract with him, the man thus conducting himself would be equally bound as if he had intended to agree to the other party's terms'。
	12.2.2	在一宗上訴案，法官 Lord Diplord 在 Paal Wilson v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal [1983] 1 AC 384 （www.casebooks.eu 資料）案說 ' .... To create a contract by exchange of promises between two parties where the promise of each party constitutes the consideration for the promise of the other, what is necessary is that the intention of each as it has been communicated to and understood by the other (even though that which has been communicated does not represent the actual state of mind of the communicator) should coincide. That is what English lawyers mean when they resort to the Latin phrase consensus ad idem and the words that I have italicised are essential to the concept of consensus ad idem, the lack of which prevents the formation of a binding contract in English law'
	12.2.3	誰人提出轉讓保留地方 (Retained Area) 給鯉景灣物業管理有限公司呢？根據鯉景灣業主代表會 7/5/1993 會議紀錄第 7.5 段，太古地產決定將保留地方轉讓給管理公司，以便讓管理公司對非法僭建之業主採取行動，包括法律行動。
	12.2.4	根據鯉景灣業主代表會 9/7/1993 會議紀錄第 8.9 段，太古地產決定將保留地方轉讓給管理公司，以便讓管理公司對非法僭建之業主採取行動，包括法律行動。
	12.2.5	根據鯉景灣業主代表會 6/1/1994 會議紀錄第 6.4 段，太古地產決定將保留地方轉讓給管理公司，以便讓管理公司對非法僭建之業主採取行動，包括法律行動。
	12.2.6	根據上述 3 份會議紀錄，太古地產主動提出將保留地方轉讓給鯉景灣物業管理有限公司，並沒有提及轉讓給全體鯉景灣業主，而全體鯉景灣業主從來沒有知匯有關向太古地產集團購買保留地方。從上述鯉景灣業主代表會議紀錄，全體鯉景灣業主沒有意圖購買保留地方。
	12.2.7	基於合約法的基本完素 (contract law elements)，發展商、Braemar West Ltd.、和全體鯉景灣業主沒有共同意圖去作出保留地方的交易，故此不存在有任何合約意圖來約束發展商和全體鯉景灣業主。因此在物業轉讓契內所指的交易不存在合法性，用法律語言來形容是 void and null （意思是無效、廢止、廢棄等等）。
	12.2.8	各位小業主在購買物業時，有沒有作出預先授權鯉景灣物業管理有限公司代表全體鯉景灣業主向發展商購買保留地方呢？管理公司註場經理、李蕙明 (Tommy Lee）在 2005 年中一次會議中高舉孖士打律師樓之信件，聲稱全體鯉景灣業主是外牆（保留地方其中一部份）業主，故此全體業主有責任維修大廈外牆。當時何超光立刻要求李蕙明提供該信件副本來研究。該信件編號為 WSSL/L5/05/6721594/4，日期是 21/5/2005，聯絡人是Wilson Lee。在這封法律意見指出，管理公司是根據大廈公契 clause 9.03(u) 所賦予的權力去代表全體鯉景灣業主向發展商進行購買保留地方這宗交易。
	12.2.9	孖士打律師樓指出，鯉景灣物業管理有限公司根據公契 clause 9.03(u) 來進行交易。首先是要引述該段全部法律條文「The Manager shall have the sole and absolute power and authority without reference to any of the Owners to do all or any of the following acts and things namely : - (u) To have sole right to represent all the Owners in all matters and dealings with Government or any statutory body or any utility or other competent authority or any other person whomsoever in any way touching or concerning the Land and the Buildings as a whole, its equipment, apparatus, services and facilities and the building staff and attendants with power to blind all Owners as to any policy adopted or decision reached or action taken in relation to any such dealings.」
	12.2.10	為了讓大眾容易閱讀及明白這段法律條文，採用刪除無關部份方法，以便大眾更易明白權力來源。首先要清楚知道，發展商是不是 Government, statutory body, utility . other competent authority 呢？很明顯是發展商不是這 4 類機構。因此將這 4 類機構字眼刪除在這段法律條文內。在刪除後，這段條文會變成「To have sole right to represent all the Owners in all matters and dealings with any other person whomsoever in any way touching or concerning the Land and the Buildings as a whole, its equipment, apparatus, services and facilities and the building staff and attendants with power to blind all Owners as to any policy adopted or decision reached or action taken in relation to any such dealings.」
	12.2.11	第二次考慮是，保留地方是不是 equipment, apparatus, services and facilities and the building staff and attendants 呢？很明顯不是這 6 類描述，因此將這 6 類描述字眼刪除在這段法律條文內。在刪除後，這段條文會變成「To have sole right to represent all the Owners in all matters and dealings with any other person whomsoever in any way touching or concerning the Land and the Buildings as a whole, with power to blind all Owners as to any policy adopted or decision reached or action taken in relation to any such dealings.」
	12.2.12	在上述兩次刪除無關機構和設施等字眼，管理公司再沒有任何事件可以引用這條法律條文。
	結論	從合約法角度來判斷，由始至終根本不存在有合法的合約來約束全體鯉景灣業主進行購買保留地方，因此可以確定那 4 份物業轉讓契約是虛假文件。

12.3		*以代理人法律（Agency law）來判斷 1994 年之物業轉讓契約 (Assignments) 是否一份真確的法律文件*
	12.3.1	鯉景灣屋苑是一個私人屋苑，發展商未出售屋苑任何一部份時，是由發展商全資擁有，故此不存在需要有大廈公契，因為不可能出現自己與自己簽合約的情況。
	12.3.2	當發展商出售第一個單位給第一個買家時，因屋苑已不是由發展商擁有整個屋苑，故此發展商需要定下一份法律文件來處理整個屋苑事務，這份文件命名大廈公契 (Deed of Mutual Covenant)。在公契內，發展商與第一個買家共同協議聘請鯉景灣物業管理有限公司代為管理屋苑公用地方（common area)、公用設施 (common facilities) 等等。因為管理公用地方等的法律責任是全體業主，故此管理公司只是全體業主的代理人代為管理屋苑公用地方等等。因為管理公司是代理人，所以受代理人法律約束。
	12.3.3	管理公司的權力及責任是受大廈公契 clause 9 約束。至於 clause 9.03(u) 所述的權力，已在 12.2.8 至 12.2.12 有所論述，不準備在此重複。除了公契指定責任外，代理人（agent）還有受信責任（fiduciary duties）。受信責任包含 (a) duty not to allow his interests to conflict with those of the principal， (b) duty to make full disclosure， (c) duty not take advantage of his position， (d) duty not to take brides or secret commissions， (e) duty not to delegate his office, sub-agency， (f) duty to acount 等等。
	12.3.4	首先要理解何謂受信責任，上訴庭法官 Lord Millett 在 Bristol & West BS v Mothew [1998] Ch1, 18 （www.bailii.org 資料）案說「A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations. They are the defining characteristics of the fiduciary.」
	12.3.5	Duty not to allow his interest to conflict with those of principal －上訴庭法官 Lord Cairns 在 Parker v McKenna [1874] LR 10 Ch App 966 （Wikipedia 資料）案說「....it appears to me very important, that we should concur in laying down again and again the general principle that in this Court no agent in the course of his agency, in the matter of his agency, can be allowed to make any profit without the knowledge and consent of his principal; that that rule is an inflexible rule, and must be applied inexorably by this Court, which is not entitled, in my judgment, to receive evidence, or suggestion, or argument as to whether the principal did or did not suffer any injury in fact by reason of the dealing of the agent; for the safety of mankind requires that no agent shall be able to put his principal to the danger of such an inquiry as that.」
	12.3.6	Duty to make full disclosure －樞密院法官 Lord Wilberforce 在 New Zealand Netherlands Society 'Oranje' Inc. v Kuys [1973] 1 WLR 1126 （www.casemine.com 資料）案說「.....First, as to disclosure. Their Lordships entirely accept, as a matter of law, that if an arrangement is to stand, whereby a particular transaction, which would otherwise come within a person's fiduciary duty, is to be exempted from it, there must be full and frank disclosure of all material facts」
	12.3.7	Duty not to take advantage of his position － House of Lords (相等香港終審法院）法官 Viscount Dilhorne 在 Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 （www.bailii.org 資料）案說「There are, however, passages in the opinions delivered in that case which are very relevant to the issues your Lordships have to determine. Lord Sankey at page 381 said: "The general rule of equity is that no one who had duties of a fiduciary nature to perform is allowed to enter into engagements in which he has or can have a personal interest conflicting with the interests of those whom he is bound to protect." Lord Russell of Killowen at page 386 said: " The rule of equity which insists on those who by use of a fiduciary position make a profit being liable to account for that profit in no way depends on fraud or absence of bona fides: or upon such questions or considerations as whether the profit would or should otherwise have gone to the plaintiff: or whether the profiteer was under a duty to obtain the source of the profit for the plaintiff or whether he took a risk or acted as he did for the benefit of the plaintiff or whether the plaintiff has in fact been damaged or benefited by his action. The liability arises from the mere fact of a profit having in the stated circumstances been made. The profiteer however honest and well intentioned cannot escape the risk of being called to account." He held that the directors were in a fiduciary relationship to the company and that they had acquired the shares " by reason and only by reason of" the fact that they were directors of Regal and in the course of their execution of that office ". Lord Macmillan at page 391 said. " We must take it that they entered into the transaction lawfully, in good faith and indeed avowedly in the interests of the company. However that does not absolve them from accountability for any profit which they made, if it was by reason and in virtue of their fiduciary office as directors that they entered into the transaction "...." The issue thus becomes one of fact. The plaintiff company has to establish two things: (1) that what the directors did was so related to the affairs of the company that it can properly be said to have been done in the course of their management and in utilisation of their opportunities and special knowledge as directors: and (2) that what they did resulted in a profit to themselves." Lord Wright at page 392 said that the question to be decided was: " Whether an agent, director, a trustee or other person in an analogous fiduciary position, when a demand is made upon him by the person to whom he stands in a fiduciary relationship to account for profits acquired by him by reason of his fiduciary position and by reason of the opportunity or knowledge, or either resulting from it, is entitled to defeat the claim upon any ground save that he made the profits with the knowledge and assent of the other person. The most usual and typical case of this nature is that of principal and agent. The rule in such cases is compendiously expressed to be that an agent must account for net profits secretly (that is, without the knowledge of his principal) acquired by him in the course of his agency." and a little later: " both in law and equity, it has been held that, if a person in a fiduciary relationship makes a secret profit out of the relationship, the court will not enquire whether the other person is damnified or has lost a profit which otherwise he would have got. The fact is itself a fundamental breach of the fiduciary relationship." And Lord Porter at page 395 said: "The legal proposition may, I think, be broadly stated by saying that one occupying a position of trust must not make a profit which he can acquire only by use of his fiduciary position, or, if he does, he must account for the profit so made."」
	12.3.8	Duty not to take bribes or secret commissions －樞密院法官 Lord Templeman 在 Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid [1993] UKPC 36 （www.bailii.org 資料）說「In that case a solicitor acting for trustees rescued the interests of the trust in a private company by negotiating for a take-over bid in which he himself took an interest. He acted in good faith throughout and the information which the solicitor obtained about the company in the take-over bid could never have been used by the trustees. Nevertheless the solicitor was held to be a constructive trustee by a majority in the House of Lords because the solicitor obtained the information which satisfied him that the purchase of the shares in the take-over company would be a good investment and the opportunity of acquiring the shares as a result of acting for certain purposes on behalf of the trustees: see per Lord Cohen ([1966] 3 All ER 721 at 743, [1967] 2 AC 46 at 103). If a fiduciary acting honestly and in good faith and making a profit which his principal could not make for himself becomes a constructive trustee of that profit, then it seems to their Lordships that a fiduciary acting dishonestly and criminally who accepts a bribe and thereby causes loss and damage to his principal must also be a constructive trustee and must not be allowed by any means to make any profit from his wrongdoing.」
	12.3.9	Duty not to delegate his office; sub-agency －很抱歉，未能在互聯網找到免費網站提供資料。如果想看判例，可參考 de Busselche v Alt [1878] LR 8 ChD 286 或其他案例。這個案例在高等法院、港大／中大／城大法律圖書館有相關案例書藉，因為案例書藉是這些圖書館之基本藏書，這 4 間圖書館只可以讓核准人士進入。大會堂／中央圖書館之參考圖書資料可能有這類書藉讓公眾人士查閱。有一個間接案例 Biffa Waste Services Limited and other v Maschinenfabrik Ernst Hese GMBH and others [2009] 3 WLR 324 （www.bailii.org 資料）涉及 principal 與未經批准外判工的索償，因為該外判工是未經 principal 批准，故此不能夠獲得索償。簡單講解，代理人未得到 principal 批准是不能夠將 principal 的工作外判。因為代理人對 principal 有 single-minded loyalty 的法定責任。
	12.3.10	Duty to account －法官 Channell J 在 Henry v Hammond [1913] 2 KB 515 （www.swarb.co.uk 資料）案說「It is clear that if the terms upon which the person receives the money are that he is bound to keep it separate, either in a bank or elsewhere, and to hand that money so kept as a separate fund to the person entitled to it, then he is a trustee of that money and must hand it over to the person who is the cestui que trust. If on the other hand he is not bound to keep the money separate, but is entitled to mix it with his own money and deal with it as he pleases, and when called upon to hand over an equivalent amount of money, then, in my opinion, he is not a trustee of the money, but merely a debtor.」
	12.3.11	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司在大廈公契內未得到授權代表全體鯉景灣業主與發展商進行保留地方的交易，而鯉景灣物業管理有限公司與發展商更是太古地產集團成員，涉及太古地產集團之利益，更需要嚴格遵守 Duty not to allow his interest to conflict with those of principal 之法律規定。根據鯉景灣業主代表會之 7/5/1993、9/7/1993、 6/1/1994 會議紀錄顯示，鯉景灣物業管理有限公司故意隱瞞這宗交易，明顯涉及欺詐行為。另外，鯉景灣物業管理有限公司聲稱代表鯉景灣全體業主進行這宗交易的行為完成是越權（ultra vires）。越權的法律後果是該越權行為是無效（void）。香港終審法院法官 Mr Justice Bokhary 在 Lam Soon Trademark Ltd. v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [FACV 25/2005］案說「24. The preclusion question having been answered in favour of the Commissioner, it becomes necessary to consider the voidness question raised by the Taxpayer’s fallback argument. As I have already said, the assessor made the additional assessments without deducting outgoing and expenses incurred in the production of chargeable profits. And the Taxpayer’s fallback argument, as I have already said, is that it is ultra vires (i.e. beyond the scope of his powers) for an assessor to make an additional assessment without deducting outgoings and expenses incurred in the production of chargeable profits. And any additional assessment made without deducting such outgoings and expenses is void. So the additional assessments in the present case are void. 」
	結論	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司在未得到全體鯉景灣業主授權與發展商進行保留地方的交易是非法行為，而所進行該宗交易是不合法及無法律效力。因此該物業轉讓契是一份虛假文件。

12.4		*以土地法（Land Law）／產權法（Property Law）來判斷 1994 年之物業轉讓契約 (Assignments) 是否一份真確的法律文件*
	12.4.1	首先要了解，誰人是香港土地的永久擁有人？根據中華人民共和國憲法第 10 條，所有土地是屬於國家，即國家是香港土地的永久擁有人、絕對擁有人。國家藉著基本法第 7 條交由香港特別行政區負責管理等事務。
	12.4.2	因香港在 1997 年 7 月 1 日前是由英國統治，故此基本法第 8 條有所規定，除了與基本法等有抵觸，予以保留。因此，港英政府批出全部合約和簽署所有法律文件繼續有法律效力。
	12.4.3	鯉景灣那 4 幅地是在香港主權轉交給中華人民共和國前已批出與太古地產集團之附屬公司、 Braemar West Ltd.。該 4 幅地的批皮條款（Conditions of Grant) 編號 11797 涉及地段編號 IL 8672、編號 11798 涉及地段編號 IL 8673、編號 11799 涉及地段編號 IL 8674 和編號 11800 涉及地段編號 IL8612。這 4 幅地是在 1988 年批出，受當年的適用法律約束。年期是 75 年由 1975 年 7 月 25 日起計，可續期。
	12.4.4	Braemar West Ltd. 在 1985 年取得地盤控制權後，立刻發展這 4 個屋苑，並在 1988/89 年落成交給已預售的買家。在簽署物業轉讓契時，同時需要簽署大廈公契（Deed of Mutal Covenant）。大廈公契規管各位個別單位業主權益、責任等等，同時委任物業管理公司和列出全部擁有獨立使用權（exclusive use）的單位。沒有獨立使用權被建築物管理條例（Chapter 344）第 2 條規定為公用部份（俗稱公共地方）。
	12.4.5	根據大廈公契 Definition Claue 1.01 「In this Deed, the following expressions shall have the following meanings except where the context otherwise permits or requires : ......"Retained Areas" include the flat roofs, spaces, yards, store rooms and areas within the Land and Buildings as shown coloured yellow on the plans annexed hereto and are more particularly mentioned in the First Schedule hereto and all services and facilities therein or thereon and the external walls of the Buildings. Once any such Retained Areas are sold to purchasers (other than to the Associated Companies or to the Manager), such areas shall immediate upon assignment ceased to be Retained Areas.」........「 "Unit" means a Flat or a Shop or any Retained Areas or Space or an External Wall or the Car Park or any Car Parking Space therein of and in the Land and Buildings and the Unit of which an Owner is entitled to the exclusive use ocupation and enjoyment shall be referred to as "that Owner's Unit"」在 First Schedule 清楚列出， External Wall (外牆）在 A 期擁有 8 個業權 (shares)、 B 期擁有 4 個業權 (shares)、C 期擁有 8 個業權 (shares)、D 期擁有 10 個業權 (shares)、
	12.4.6	根據大廈公契 Clause 3.01 「The Assignor shall at all times hereafter subject to and with the benefit of the Crown Grant have the sole and exclusive right and priviledge to hold, use, occupy and enjoy to the exclusion of the Assignee the whole of the Land and the Buildings together with the appurtanances thereto and the entire rents and profits thereof SAVE AND EXCEPT that the Unit the right to the exclusive use and enjoyment of which has been assigned to the Assignee by virtue of the said Assignment and of which particulars are contained in the Second Schedule hereto and SAVE AND EXCEPT the Common Areas and Common Service and Facilities SUBJECT TO and with the benefit of the provisions of this Deed.」
	12.4.7	根據大廈公契 Clause 4.01 「The Assignor and/or its successors and assigns of the relevant rights and/or the Associated Companies (and the expression "the Assignor" in this Clause 4.01 shall mean and include the Assignor specifically named in this Deed and /or its successors and/or assigns of the relevant right and/or the Associated Companies) shall for as so long as it remains the legal or beneficial owner of any Undivided Share have the sole and absolute right in its absolute and unfettered discretion at any time or times and from time to time as it shall deem fit : -...」
	12.4.8	根據大廈公契 Clause 5.01 「Each Undivided Share together with the full and exclusive right and priviledge to hold use occupy and enjoy any part of the Buildings and to receive the rents and profits therefrom shall be held by the Owner thereof from time to time subject to and with the benefit of the following easements, rights and priviledge namely :-......」
	12.4.9	至於 1994 年物業轉讓契涉及鯉景灣那部份物業呢？在物業轉讓契將需要轉讓部份之物業列入附件之內，基本上是公契內之保留地方（Retained Areas）。根據大廈公契，保留地方是有獨立使用權，而 1994 年物業轉讓契也確認這一事實。這份物業轉讓契之特別之處是在 Clause 1 「In consideration of HONG KONG DOLLAR ONE (HK$1.00) paid by the Purchaser to the Vendor (receipt whereof is acknowledged) the Vendor as Beneficial Owner ASSGINS to the Purchaser the Property *EXCEPTING AND RESERVING the exceptions and reservatioins as set out in paragraph 2 of the Schedule* hereto .........」，Scheduel 之 paragraph 2 「Exceptions and reservations : - ......... (B) Excepting and Reserving unto the Vendor, its successors and assigns of the relevant rights : - (i) the right to the exclusive use occupation and enjoyment of (a) the external walls, canopies, upper roofs and roofs of the said buildings .........」
	12.4.10	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司揀選之法律顧問、李郭羅律師行、提交他們之 2010 年 9 月 20 日法律意見，第 A1 段確認保留地方有獨家使用作。而何超光之 2010 年 12 月 15 日觀察／評論／疑問書，第 7 段也認同這點。至於何超光與李郭羅律師行在解讀法律責任之爭議，留待在刑事法部份論述。
	12.4.11	有關保留地方之獨立使用權問題上，經上述段落引述公契條文、鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之法律顧問及何超光的解讀是完全一致，故此在獨立使用權等法律觀點是沒有爭議，即保留地方之獨立使用權等是被確立。
	12.4.12	經保留地方之獨立使用權等被確立後，就進入與土地交易有關的法律規定議題。首先要知道有關與土地交易的法律規定，根據＜物業轉讓及財產條例＞（香港法律第 219章) 第 3 條規定，任何與土地相關的交易，必須以書面作出。另外，根據＜印花稅條例＞（香港法律第 117 章＞第 15 條規定，任何與土地相關的文件，必須在該文件上蓋上印花稅蓋章，否則均屬無法律行使權的文件 (unenforceable instructment)。
	12.4.13	鯉景灣物業管理有限公司在 1994 物業轉讓契內，聲稱代表全面鯉景灣業主與 Braemar West Ltd. 進行保留地方業權的交易，但無法提出有說服力的文件，來支持他們的代表地住。他們只說，法律意見話鯉景灣物業管理有限公司是以受託人 (trustee) 身份代表全體業主持有保留地方。在這情況下，只有兩份文件涉及保留地方之買賣交易。現在開始引用土地／產權法來分析這宗交易，首先看看大廈公契有沒有根據印花稅條例去打厘印 (stamp) 呢？當翻查／翻看大廈公契，無法看到有厘印印在大廈公契任何一面內，即沒有打厘印，導致大廈公契不能在任何樓宇交易中用作為授權文件。另外，在上述段落論述已確認，全體業主沒有授權鯉景灣物業管理有限公司去進行任何物業買賣的交易。從大廈公契層面來判斷， 1994 年物業轉讓契內所指的保留地方之交易是不合法，因此 1994 年物業轉讓契文件是一份虛假文件。
	結論	從土地法／產權法來分析及判斷， 1994 年物業轉讓契是虛假文件。

12.5		*以信託法（Trust Law）來判斷 1994 年之物業轉讓契約 (Assignments) 是否一份真確的法律文件*
	12.5.1	為何需要考慮信託法呢？考慮信託法的原因是鯉景灣物業管理有限公司在 1994 年物業轉讓契聲稱，他們以受託人 (trustee) 身份氏代表全體鯉景灣業主從 Braemar West Ltd. 購入鯉景灣保留地方。
	12.5.2	何謂信託 (trust) 呢？信託的法定定義有成文法解釋。＜信託人條例＞（香港法例第 29 章）第 2 條「信託 (trust) 不包括以按揭方式轉易的產業權所附帶的職責，但除此之外，信託 (trust) 及*受託人* (trustee) 兩詞均及默示信託及法律構定信託、受託人對信託財產享有實益權益的情況以及遺產代理人一職所附帶的職責，而凡文意允許之處，*受託人* (trustee) 包括遺產代理人，而*新受託人* (new trustee)則包括額外的受託人；「*trust* (信託) does not include the duties incident to an estate conveyed by way of mortgage, but with this exception the expression *trust* (信託) and *trustee* (受託人) extend to implied and constructive trusts, and to cases where the trustee has a beneficial interest in the trust property, and to the duties incident to the office of a personal representative, and *trustee* (受託人) where the context admits includes a personal representative, and *new trustee* (新受託人) includes an additional trustee」
	12.5.3	相信有人看完成文法的定義，也未完全明白定義的內容。網站 www.businessdictionary.com 有一個簡單介紹，引述「Legal entity created by a party (the trustor) through which a second party (the trustee) holds the right to manage the trustor's assets or property for the benefit of a third party (the beneficiary).」
	12.5.4	可能有人更想有較為詳細解釋何謂信託，引述 Alastair Hudson 在 Equity and Trusts, Eighth Edition 第 47 頁所記載的定義「The essence of a trust is the imposition of an equitable obligation on a person who is the legal owner of property (a trustee) which requires that person to act in good conscience when dealing with that property in favour of any person (the beneficiary) who has a beneficial interest recongnised by equity in the property. The trustee is said to 'hold the property in trust' for the beneficiary. There are four significant elements to the trust: that it is equitable, that it provides the beneficiary with rights in property, that it also imposes obligations on the trustee, and that those obligation are fiduciary in nature.」
	12.5.5	House of Lords （相等於香港終審法院）法官 Lord Brown-Wilkinson 在 WESTDEUTSCHE LANDESBANK GIROZENTRALE v COUNCIL OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON [1996] 2 AC669 案說「The Relevant Principles of Trust Law (i) Equity operates on the conscience of the owner of the legal interest. In the case of a trust, the conscience of the legal owner requires him to carry out the purposes for which the property was vested in him (express or implied trust) or which the law imposes on him by reason of his unconscionable conduct (constructive trust). (ii) Since the equitable jurisdiction to enforce trusts depends upon the conscience of the holder of the legal interest being affected, he cannot be a trustee of the property if and so long as he is ignorant of the facts alleged to affect his conscience, i.e. until he is aware that he is intended to hold the property for the benefit of others in the case of an express or implied trust, or, in the case of a constructive trust, of the factors which are alleged to affect his conscience. (iii) In order to establish a trust there must be identifiable trust property. The only apparent exception to this rule is a constructive trust imposed on a person who dishonestly assists in a breach of trust who may come under fiduciary duties even if he does not receive identifiable trust property. (iv) Once a trust is established, as from the date of its establishment the beneficiary has, in equity, a proprietary interest in the trust property, which proprietary interest will be enforceable in equity against any subsequent holder of the property (whether the original property or substituted property into which it can be traced) other than a purchaser for value of the legal interest without notice.」
	12.5.6	信託大至上分為 Express Trust， Resulting Trust 和 Construtive Trust。
	12.5.7	首先介紹不適合這宗案的 Resulting Trust ： House of Lords （相等於香港終審法院）法官 Lord Brown-Wilkinson 在 WESTDEUTSCHE LANDESBANK GIROZENTRALE v COUNCIL OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF ISLINGTON [1996] 2 AC669 案說「Under existing law a resulting trust arises in two sets of circumstances: (1) Where A makes a voluntary payment to B or pays (wholly orin part) for the purchase of property which is vested either inB alone or in the joint names of A and B. there is a presumption that A did not intend to make a gift to B: the money or property is held on trust for A (if he is the sole provider of the money) or in the case of a joint purchase by A and B in shares proportionate to their contributions. It is important to stress that this is only a presumption, which presumption is easily rebutted either by the counter- presumption of advancement or by direct evidence of A's intention to make an outright transfer: see Underhill and Hayton (supra) p. 317 et seq.; Vandervell v. I.R.C. [1967] 2 A.C. 291 at 312 et seq.; In re Vandervell (No. 2) [1974] Ch. 269 at 288 et seq. *(2)* Where A transfers property to B on express trusts, but the trusts declared do not exhaust the whole beneficial interest: ibid. and Barclays Bank v. Quistclose Investments Ltd. [1970] A.C. 567.
	12.5.8	其次介紹不適合這宗案的 Constructive Trust ：上訴庭法官 Lord J. Millet 在 Thimbleby & Co. v. Paragon Finance PLC [1999] 1 AL ER 400 案說「A constructive trust arises by operation of law whenever the circumstances are such that it would be unconscionable for the owner of property (usually but not necessarily the legal estate) to assert his own beneficial interest in the property and deny the beneficial interest of another. In the first class of case, however, the constructive trustee really is a trustee. He does not receive the trust property in his own right but by a transaction by which both parties intend to create a trust from the outset and which is not impugned by the plaintiff. His possession of the property is coloured from the first by the trust and confidence by means of which he obtained it, and his subsequent appropriation of the property to his own use is a breach of that trust. Well known examples of such a constructive trust are McCormick v Grogan (1869) 4 App.Cas. 82 (a case of a secret trust) and Rochefoucald v Boustead [1897] 1 Ch. 196 (where the defendant agreed to buy property for the plaintiff but the trust was imperfectly recorded). Pallant v Morgan [1953] Ch. 43 (where the defendant sought to keep for himself property which the plaintiff trusted him to buy for both parties) is another. In these cases the plaintiff does not impugn the transaction by which the defendant obtained control of the property. He alleges that the circumstances in which the defendant obtained control make it unconscionable for him thereafter to assert a beneficial interest in the property. The second class of case is different. It arises when the defendant is implicated in a fraud. Equity has always given relief against fraud by making any person sufficiently implicated in the fraud accountable in equity. In such a case he is traditionally though I think unfortunately described as a constructive trustee and said to be “liable to account as constructive trustee.” Such a person is not in fact a trustee at all, even though he may be liable to account as if he were. He never assumes the position of a trustee, and if he receives the trust property at all it is adversely to the plaintiff by an unlawful transaction which is impugned by the plaintiff. In such a case the expressions “constructive trust” and “constructive trustee” are misleading, for there is no trust and usually no possibility of a proprietary remedy; they are “nothing more than a formula for equitable relief”: Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd. v Cradock [1968] 1 WLR 1555 at p. 1582 per Ungoed-Thomas J
	12.5.9	與香港警務人員貪污案有關之 Contructive Trust 案例：樞密院法官 Lord Templeman 在 Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid [1993] UKPC 36 （www.bailii.org 資料）說「....., then it seems to their Lordships that a fiduciary acting dishonestly and criminally who accepts a bribe and thereby causes loss and damage to his principal must also be a constructive trustee and must not be allowed by any means to make any profit from his wrongdoing.」
	12.5.10	最後探討 Express Trust ：香港上訴庭法官 Hon Yuen JA 在 Ho Hon Piu v Li Miu Kwai representing the estate of Ho Hon Ka (deceased) CACV 15 of 2017 案說「20. I pause here to make some observations. First, it is well-established law that the “3 certainties” must be present before an express trust can be established. What is often referred to as “certainty of words” is the requirement of an intention on the part of the settlors and the trustee, expressed in clear words, that a trust (in which the trustee is under strict legal obligations towards the beneficiaries) should be created.
	12.5.11	誰人是 settlor 呢？香港終審法院法官 Mr Justice Bokhary PJ 在 The estate of LAU LEUNG CHAU, deceased (3rd fong) and others v LAU YUK KUI, Administrator of the estate of LAU WAI CHAU, deceased and others [FACV 15/1999] 案說「25. As to how such endowments are to be made under Chinese law and custom, the conclusion to be reached (with the benefit of the expert evidence accepted by the judge whose acceptance thereof was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and is not challenged before us) is as follows. Such endowments are to be made either by steps taken by someone in his lifetime to carry out his own wishes or by steps taken by heirs in their lifetime to carry out the wishes of a deceased ancestor. In either case the person or persons taking such steps is the settlor or are the settlors. Thus by the very nature of ancestral worship trusts, the only kind of disposition that can create an ancestral worship trust is an inter vivos disposition.
	12.5.12	誰人是 trustee 呢？信託人條例沒有一個直接涉及受託人的定義，而在公開互聯網的免費案例網站也尋找不到一個直接的定義，故此用下列段落來尋找法院傾向接受的解釋。
	12.5.13	＜信託承認條例＞（香港法律第 76 章）附表第 1 章第 2 條「在本公約中，“信託”一詞指財產授予人為了受益人的利益或指明的目的，將資產置於受託人的控制下而設立的法律關係，不論該關係是在財產授予人在世時或死亡時生效的。信託具下列特點 —— (a) 信託資產為一獨立資金，而且不屬於受託人自己財產的一部分; (b) 信託資產是以受託人名義，或以代表受託人的另一個人的名義所持有; (c) 受託人有權和有責任，按照信託的條款及法律加於他的特殊職責，管理、使用或將資產脫手，並須對該等權力和責任負責。財產授予人保留某些權利和權力，及受託人本身可作為受益人而享有權利，這樣並不一定與信託的存在相抵觸。 For the purposes of this Convention, the term “trust ” refers to the legal relationship created-inter vivos or on death-by a person, the settlor, when assets have been placed under the control of a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary or for a specified purpose. A trust has the following characteristics— (a) the assets constitute a separate fund and are not a part of the trustee's own estate; (b) title to the trust assets stands in the name of the trustee or in the name of another person on behalf of the trustee ; (c) the the trustee has the power and the duty, in respect of which he is accountable, to manage, employ or dispose of the assets in accordance with the terms of the trust and the special duties imposed upon him by law. The reservation by the settlor of certain rights and powers, and the fact that the trustee may himself have rights as a beneficiary, are not necessarily inconsistent with the existence of a trust.」
	12.5.14	受託人在 Wikipedia 網站的講解是「Trustee (or the holding of a trusteeship) is a legal term which, in its broadest sense, is a synonym for anyone in a position of trust and so can refer to any person who holds property, authority, or a position of trust or responsibility to transfer the title of ownership to the person named as the new owner, in a trust instrument, called a beneficiary. A trustee can also...............」
	12.5.15	受託人在 dictionary.law.com 網站的解釋是「a person or entity who holds the assets (corpus) of a trustee for the benefit of the beneficiaries and manages the trust and its assets under the terms of the trust stated in the declaration of trust which created it. In many "living trusts" the creator of the trust (trustor, settlor) names himse...」
	12.5.16	誰人是 beneficiary （受益人）呢？信託人條例沒有一個直接涉及受益人的定義，而在公開互聯網的免費案例網站也尋找不到一個直接的定義，故此用下列段落來尋找法院傾向接受的解釋。
	12.5.17	＜財產繼承（供養遺屬及受養人）條例（香港法律第 481 章）第 2 (1) 條「“beneficiary ” (受益人 ), in relation to the estate of a deceased person, means— (a) a person who under the will of the deceased or under the law relating to intestacy is beneficially interested in the estate or would be so interested if an order had not been made under this Ordinance; and (b) a person who has received any sum of money or other property which by virtue of section 10 is treated as part of the net estate of the deceased or would have received that sum or other property if an order had not been made under this Ordinance; “受益人 ” (beneficiary )，就死者的遺產而言，指 —— (a) 根據死者遺囑或關於無遺囑繼承的法律而在有關遺產中享有實益權益的人，或假使沒有根據本條例作出的命令當會一如上述般享有該等權益的人；及 (b) 已收取憑藉第10條被視為死者淨遺產的一部分的任何款項或其他財產的人，或假使沒有根據本條例作出的命令當會已收取該筆款項或其他財產的人；」
	12.5.18	受益人在 dictionary.law.com 網站的解釋是「a broad definition for any person or entity (like a charity) who is to receive assets or profits from an estate, a trust, an insurance policy or any instrument in which there is distribution. There is also an "incidental beneficiary" or a "third party beneficiary" who gets a benefit although not ...」
	12.5.19	經上述簡單介紹信託法。現在開始探討鯉景灣在真實情況下，有沒有在 1994 Assignment 所指的信託安排呢？首先是探討鯉景灣在保留地方之交易過程中，有沒有像前警務人員涉及犯罪所得的財務呢？無證據或無跡象顯示在這宗交易過程中產生任何財產或資產，因此不涉犯 Resulting Trust。其次是探討鯉景灣全體業主在這宗保留地方之交易，有沒有指控 Braemar West Ltd. 及／或鯉景灣物業管理有限公司搶奪保留地方業權呢？答案是沒有，因此不涉及 Constructive Trust。最後是探討鯉景灣在保留地方之交易過程中有否涉及 Express Trust 呢？第一步：就翻查鯉景灣業主代表會之會議紀錄，在 7/5/1993、9/7/1993、 6/1/1994 會議紀錄只提及太古地產 (SPL) 將外牆業權轉名到鯉景灣物業管理有限公司名下，並沒有提及鯉景灣物業管理有限公司以受託人身份代表全面鯉景灣業主向太古地產集團購買保留地方，因此不涉及信託安排。第二步：重溫過去多年涉及保留地方的言行，太古地產集團員工及／或關連人士在不同時侯／不同環境統一回應，鯉景灣物業管理有限公司以受託人身份向 Braemar West Ltd. 購入保留地方。鯉景灣物業管理有限公司董事、鄧偉政、更以 18/3/2015 和 14/8/2015 信件聲稱，大廈公契受權鯉景灣物業管理有限公司進行交易。在上述合約法部份已解釋過，大廈公契並沒有受權鯉景灣物業管理有限公司代表全面業主進行這宗交易，故此鄧偉政向何超光發出該兩封信涉嫌觸犯欺詐罪。第三步：追查有沒有一份買賣合約，太古地產集團員工及／或關連人士無法作出回應。另外翻查鯉景灣第 8 座大廈外牆／第 8 座 2 樓 G 室相連平台（Flat Roof）之土地登記冊，並沒有顯示有買賣合約的存在，故此毫無疑問可以確定這宗交易根本不在有 Arms' Length （台灣之高點法律網翻譯為［公平交易；正常交易］）的交易，甚至不存在這宗交易，因此保留地方的業權並沒有轉移到鯉景灣全體業主身上。 *第四步* ：何超光多次追問有沒有 Trust Deed 的存在？無人可以作出回覆，因此毫無疑問可以確定，根本沒有 Trust Deed 的存在。基於上訴庭法官法官 Hon Yuen （袁家寧女法官）JA 在 Ho Hon Piu v Li Miu Kwai representing the estate of Ho Hon Ka (deceased) CACV 15 of 2017 案指出，Express Trust 必須有 3 個 certainties (確定性）。在沒有Trust Deed 情況下，實在是無法會有 Express Trust 的存在。
	結論	基於上述各段論據，毫無疑問可以判斷， 1994 Assignment 是一份虛假文件。

12.6		*以公司法來判斷，有限公司是否需要承擔該公司員工／負責人所產生的法律責任*
	12.6.1	成立一間有限公司，需向公司註冊處申請及提交所需文件。當公司註冊處處長根據公司條例（香港法律第 622 章）第 71 條簽發公司註冊證明書後，根公司條例第 72 條該公司（包括有限債或無限債務）便正式成立，而公司條例第 73 條賦予／確認該公司擁有法團地位的所有職能。
	12.6.2	當申請註冊成立有限公司時，其中一份文件就是公司規例（Articles）［公司條例未作出修改到現在版本時，所需文件是 Memorandum and Articles of Association (公司的組織章程大綱)，公司註冊處提供的樣本供申請人參考］，這份公司規例可被視為公司條例的附屬法例（By-Law）。
	12.6.3	當公司完成註冊程序及取得公司註冊證明書後，該公司根據公司條例第 115 條擁有成年自然人的身分、權利、權力及特權。
	12.6.4	修讀公司法人士（包括大律師、律師、法律行政人員、專業會計師）必需修讀的標誌性案例 (landmark case)、Solomon v Solomon [1897] AC 22，對有限公司的法律地位有約束性。想簡單了解這宗案的基本原則，可參考 Wikipedia.org 網站資料。
	12.6.5	因有限公司不是自然人，故此需要任命自然人代為執行公司運作。公司條例第 453 或 454 條規定委任自然人為公司董事。
	12.6.6	公司根據公司條例第 75 條已定立章程細則 (Articles)，此章程細則訂明該公司的規例，其中包括規管董事之權責。
	12.6.7	董事除了公司組織章程和大鋼規定外，還有公司條例其他條文、普通法、衡平法等等規管。在這宗案，重點放在公司條例第 465 條有關合理水平的謹慎、技巧及努力行事之責任（must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence）。
	12.6.8	合理水平的謹慎 (reasonable care) 是侵權法 (Tort Law) 的範疇。在標誌性案例 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] UKHL 100 或 [1932] AC 562 案，House of Lords 法官、Lord Buckmaster、說「The principle of tort lies completely outside the region where such considerations apply, and the duty, if it exists, must extend to every person who, in lawful circumstances, uses the article made. There can be no special duty attaching to the manufacture of food apart from that implied by contract or imposed by statute. If such a duty exists, it seems to me it must cover the construction of every article....」 Lord Atkin 說「.....The liability for negligence, whether you style it such or treat it as in other systems as a species of “culpa,” is no doubt based upon a general public sentiment of moral wrongdoing for which the offender must pay. But acts or omissions which any moral code would censure cannot in a practical world be treated so as to give a right to every person injured by them to demand relief. In this way rules of law arise which limit the range of complainants and the extent of their remedy. The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question............A direct authority is George v. Skivington. LR 5 Ex 1 ........but whether the chemist was liable in an action on the case for unskilfulness and negligence in the manufacture of it. “Unquestionably there was such a duty towards the purchaser, and it extends, in my judgment, to the person for whose use the vendor knew the compound was purchased.”.......」
	12.6.9	閱讀 Donoghue v Steveson 案例是枯燥無味，如果想以生活化語言去了解這個案例，可以進入Wikipedia 網站參閱這個案例的簡介。
	12.6.10	當董事或其授權人士因履行公司業務時觸犯法律，公司會否也同時觸犯法律呢？答案當然「是」。公司沒有人類的腦，又沒有人類的手腳，如何可以觸犯法律呢？更重要是觸犯刑事罪行要有犯罪意圖 (Mens Rea) 和犯罪行為(Actus Reus)。公司的犯罪意圖是出自控制公司運作之人士，通常是董事及／或經理級的僱員；而公司的犯罪行為可以是公司任何一位僱員。在過往有沒有案例可以支持這個論據呢？嘗試以下列案例來解說。
	12.6.11	首先介紹是香港一間建築公司、Gammon (HK) Ltd.，它被控未有完全依照圖則起樓，因而被檢控，最後上訴到樞密院。案例名稱是 Gammon (HK) Ltd. v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1985] AC1， e-lawresources.co.uk 網站提供簡單資料。從這宗案例，可以確定公司是有能力觸犯刑事罪行。
	12.6.12	誰人可以履行公司的腦袋功能呢？ House of Lords 法官 Lord Reid 在 Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v Nattrass [1971] UKHL 1 案說「I must start by considering the nature of the personality which by a fiction the law attributes to a corporation. A living person has a mind which can have knowledge or intention or be negligent and he has hands to carry out his intentions. A corporation has none of these: it must act through living persons, though not always one or the same person. Then the person who acts is not speaking or acting for the company. He is acting as the company and his mind which directs his acts is the mind of the company. There is no question of the company being vicariously liable. He is not acting as a servant, representative, agent or delegate. He is an embodiment of the company or, one could say, he hears and speaks through the persona of the company, within his appropriate sphere, and his mind is the mind of the company. If it is a guilty mind then that guilt is the guilt of the company. It must be a question of law whether, once the facts have been ascertained, a person in doing particular things is to be regarded as the company or merely as the company's servant or agent. In that case any liability of the company can only be a statutory or vicarious liability.....」
	12.6.13	以鯉景灣物業管理有限公司個案來尋找誰人是 Tesco Surpermarkets Ltd. v Nattrass 案所指的腦袋人呢？根據鯉景灣物業管理有限公司之公司組織章程和大綱 Article 86 「The business of the Company shall be managed by the Driectors, who shall pay all the expenses incurred in the formation and registration of the Company, and who may execise all such power of the Company as are not by the Ordinance.......」。另外 Article 87 「The Directors may establish any local boards or agencies for managing any of the affairs of the Comapny, either in Hong Kong or elsewhere, and may appoint any persons to be members of such local boards, or any managers or agents of the Company ........and may delegate to any board, manager or agent any of the powers, authorities and discretions vested in the Directors.......」
	12.6.14	誰人可以履行公司的手腳功能呢？ House of Lords 法官 Lord Reid 在 Tesco Supermarkets Ltd. v Nattrass [1971] UKHL 1 案引述另外一位得高望重的法官 Lord Denning 的判詞說「Reference is frequently made to the judgment of Lord Denning in Bolton (Engineering) Co. v. Graham [1957] 1 Q-B. 159. He said (at page 172): A company may in many ways be likened to a human body. It has a brain and nerve centre which controls what it does. It also has hands which hold the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. Some of the people in the company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more than hands to do the work and cannot be said to represent the mind or will. Others are directors and managers who represent the directing mind and will of the company, and control what it does. The state of mind of these managers is the state of mind of the company and is treated by the law as such.」
	12.6.15	何謂控股／附屬公司呢？公司條例第 13 至 16 條有所規定，簡單介紹，控股公司是指可以操控另一間公司的公司；附屬公司是指該公司被另外一間公司操控的公司。

詳細論述

13.1	整體論述英文版本 pdf 格式

鯉景灣 1994 Assignment

LM (522/17) in CP HKI EDIST/1-70/74 LM (843/14) in HK/E 18/2/1

1994 年 4 月 19 日 或相近日期

1994 年 4 月 19 日或相近日期