Sunday, January 16, 2011

美孚八期業主點贏


上個禮拜六晚,我同老竇食食下飯,老竇突然一句:「嗰個涂謹申好水皮!」
孫柏文:「今次又咩事?」

老竇:「嗰日睇《鏗鏘集》,睇佢都搞唔掂美孚第八期海皮石油氣庫起樓單嘢。」
我:「嗰度真係勁,起到嘅話,業主可以喺騎樓由原先有無敵海景,變成伸手摸到樓。不過有得阻止咩?有得阻就起唔到『曼克頓山』啦!」

老竇:「你都唔識。」
我:「識嘅話,我都學阿涂去抽水喇。」

老竇:「哪,以前真係停唔到,不過,依家打官司就得。不過涂謹申呢啲級數嘅律師就唔識。」我:「憑咩理據先?同埋點解以前唔得,依家得?」

老竇:「憑一樣叫easement權嘅嘢。Easement權就係例如如果有個人喺你個物業周圍買地,重重包圍你間屋,你係有權要求嗰位人兄喺佢塊地度俾條路你行。咁除咗路之外,easement權亦包括『光』同『空氣』。」
我:「香港唔係冇呢個權嘅咩?記得以前跟你去開業主立案法團會議,你好大聲同屋企後邊啲業主講,佢哋冇呢個權喎。」

老竇:「香港以前真係冇呢個權,因為根據幾百年來案例,easement權只係適用於freehold永遠擁有嘅地,除咗中環St. John's Cathedral塊地之外,香港啲地全部leasehold,即係問政府租,政府先係最終地主。即係除咗St. John's Cathedral之外,冇其他人塊地可要求行使easement權。」

老竇:「不過,如果你上網睇。今年4月終審庭判出咗一單政府同一間叫Sun Honest Development嘅官司,寫判詞嘅外借法官Lord Millet,就將easement權伸延俾leasehold嘅地。終審庭案例喎,下邊啲庭仲唔跟足?」
我:「就係咁簡單?」

老竇:「你如果要打呢啲官司都要小心。因判詞話easement權喺香港要靠prescription,即係隔籬塊地嘅某啲嘢,例如行出去嘅路、陽光等,俾你用咗好多年,就唔可以攞走。所以,要打就要搵個住咗嗰度超過廿年嘅人去做受害者代表。」
我:「美孚交投量咁大,全部都係新業主咪冇得打?」

老竇:「嗰日睇電視都有個話自己住喺嗰度三十年嘅阿伯,喊苦喊忽。搵佢囉。」
我:「咁就易打番轉頭啦。如果我係發展商,就land search搵晒啲合資格業主,跟住高賠償庭外和解,其他啲就唔使理佢哋食自己。地產霸權你估係浪得虛名㗎?」

老竇:「哈,係。冇錯,咁地產商就可以拆招。」
我:「不過第時個個都話唔可以阻陽光,起樓點畫則呀?」

老竇:「關我咩事?我係律師,又唔係則師!」

10 comments:

  1. Mr Suen, I've been following your blog for some time, nice reading, good work. Want to share with you some view from the perspective of a local architect to your posted subject. It is really hard for Mei Foo residents to defend the case with 'Easement'. Just a look at the urban developments, and you will realize the requirements for 'natural ventilation and light' under current regulation is not very stringent. By putting a road of 4.5m along the northern and western boundary of the site, 80C, 90A, 94A and 96C on the abutting these 'roads' already comply fully with the lighting requirement. For the 102A and 104C facing the eastern boundary of the site there is already some buffer space between these flat and the site. The lighting requirement could easily be satisfied with slight set-back of the new tower.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yo.

    Thats the whole point of suing under the new ruling... To change executive actions.

    I wonder would anyone challenge under the new easement rules.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Suen, the whole point of my comment is that the definition of 'light' and 'air' is well written in the current regulations. Under such that set of rules, the new building could still be built in a manner that the 'sea-view' for those existing flats being completely blocked and at the same time the provisions of 'light' and 'air' to those existing flats still comply with the minimum standard stipulated in the regulations (although such provisions are adversely affected by the new building).

    In fact the Buildings (Planning) Regulation 37 reads as 'No building shall be erected in such a manner as to reduce the quantity of light and air available to any other building, which has been erected in accordance with these regulations, below that required under these regulations.'

    note the last phrase, 'below that required under these regulations'.

    In other words, even if someone do challenge under the new easement rules, it is very easy for the developer to defend his case in the aspect of 'air' and 'light' provisions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I understand your worries.

    IF IT WAS UP TO THE EXECUTIVE branch of the government to decide how to apply the easement concept, I would say that you are right.

    However, now it is up to the judiciary. And one can sue to STOP development on a case by case basis.

    Stuffed Duck educated individuals will look at the current regulations such as Buildings (Planning) Regulation 37 and say "hey, there are already rules that claims to apply the concept of easement."

    But it is a whole different ball game when the courts, armed with new test case results, to challenge. Just make sure one hires a good lawyer that understand what Lord Millet wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ie. don't hire 涂謹申 hor hor hor

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like your punchline....hahaha

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do like to see the current 'lighting and ventilation' regulations being overhauled...if someone do challenge the adequacy of those rules. They are actually outdated and we can feel their 'side-effect' right now....look at those 'screen towers' all over the city...>_<

    ReplyDelete
  8. 尊敬的孫柏文先生:
    你好!我叫杜礎圻,為上海復旦大學的國際政治碩士畢業生,是香港人.我知道孫先生一直主張自由經濟,反對過多社會福利.本人的政治理念與孫先生是一致的.唯現在香港政壇現在普遍左傾,民粹主義橫行,政客只懂向政府拿錢.因此本人倡議成立香港保守黨,以正歪風.希望孫先生可以與我一起成立保守黨,為香港未來作出貢獻.本人在facebook已成立倡議成立保守黨的群組:http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_190909447595191&ap=1
    如孫先生有空,本人可以與孫先生詳談,討論相關的理念.孫先生可於該群組聯絡Tony To(即本人).謝謝!
    祝新年快樂
    杜礎圻

    ReplyDelete
  9. 尊敬的孫柏文先生:
    你好!我叫杜礎圻,為上海復旦大學的國際政治碩士畢業生,是香港人.我知道孫先生一直主張自由經濟,反對過多社會福利.本人的政治理念與孫先生是一致的.唯現在香港政壇現在普遍左傾,民粹主義橫行,政客只懂向政府拿錢.因此本人倡議成立香港保守黨,以正歪風.希望孫先生可以與我一起成立保守黨,為香港未來作出貢獻.本人在facebook已成立倡議成立保守黨的群組:http://www.facebook.com/#!/home.php?sk=group_190909447595191&ap=1
    如孫先生有空,本人可以與孫先生詳談,討論相關的理念.孫先生可於該群組聯絡Tony To(即本人).謝謝!
    祝新年快樂
    杜礎圻

    ReplyDelete