Cheng Pan and Another v. Yau Lai Wah
Read the full judgment text of HCA 376/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 February 2021.
1. The plaintiffs (“ P1 ” and “ P2 ”, and together “ Ps ”) and defendant (“ D ”) are neighbours in the vertical sense. Their properties (“ Ps’ Property ” and “ D’s Property ”) are both inside Yee Wa Building (the “ Building ”), with D’s Property directly above Ps’ Property. On 8 February 2015, large amount of “soil water” was discovered to be leaking onto Ps’ Property. It is Ps’ case, denied by D, that D was responsible for that. Ps are seeking damages, together with an injunction to abate t
Cites 12 cases
|
HCA 376/2015 [2021] HKCFI 325 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 376 OF 2015 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________
________________________ J U D G M E N T ________________________ A. Introduction 1.The plaintiffs (“P1” and “P2”, and together “Ps”) and defendant (“D”) are neighbours in the vertical sense. Their properties (“Ps’ Property” and “D’s Property”) are both inside Yee Wa Building (the “Building”), with D’s Property directly above Ps’ Property. On 8 February 2015, large amount of “soil water” was discovered to be leaking onto Ps’ Property. It is Ps’ case, denied by D, that D was responsible for that. Ps are seeking damages, together with an injunction to abate the leakage, which they say have been continuing. The main issues before me are whether D is liable to the leakage as alleged, and if so the quantum of damages which she should be held responsible for. 2.Mr Philip Li appeared for Ps. Ms Selina Kung appeared for D. B. Yee Wa Building 3.The Building is a composite development located at Un Chau Street, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon. It is about 50 years old. It comprises 3 adjoining 12-storey blocks. Each block has on the ground floor two shops, and on each of the upper floors (1st to 11th) 2 residential units. The Building has 6 street numbers (namely Nos 403, 405, 407, 409, 411 and 413 of Un Chau Street), in effect one number to half of each block. No 403 hence comprises one shop and the 11 residential units above it within one block, and No 405 comprises the other shop and residential units above it in that same block. Nos 403 and 405 together form one block served by the same lift and set of staircases. The other two blocks have the same configuration, and have their separate lifts and sets of staircases. 4.This case concerns the shop at the Ground Floor of No 403 (ie Ps’ Property) and the residential unit on the 1st Floor of No 403 (ie D’s Property). 5.The Deed of Mutual Covenant of the Building (“DMC”) is dated 19 May 1972. It contains inter alia the following covenants:
C. Ps, and Ps’ Property 6.P1 and P2 are husband and wife. Mr Cheng Yiu Fai is their son (“Son”). Ps have since 1985 been the joint registered owners of the shop on the Ground Floor of the Building (ie Ps’ Property). 7.Since about 1987, P2 has been operating an estate agency business at Ps’ Property. The Son has been the manager of the business. P1 seldom attends Ps’ Property. 8.For use as an office for their business, Ps’ Property has been partitioned into different rooms. Towards the back of Ps’ Property there is a back yard (the “Back Yard”). It was according to the approved building plan an open yard. Until about August 2016, there was a metal roof over the same, covering about 85% of the Back Yard. It is not in dispute that that roof was an unauthorized building work. D. D, and D’s Property 9.D on 17 October 1997 bought D’s Property. On that same day, D’s husband also purchased the 1st Floor of No 405. Between 1997 and early 2010, and between March 2011 and February 2015, D’s Property was rented out. 10.D’s Property comprises a residential unit and portions of the 1st Floor flat roof (the “1/F Residential Unit” and “Flat Roof” respectively, and together the “1st Floor” or D’s Property). The Flat Roof is a private flat roof which the owner of the 1st Floor has the exclusive right to use[1]. 11.As has been observed above, D’s Property is directly above Ps’ Property. 12.Sometime in 2010, D engaged a contractor called Hung Yat Design and Decoration (“Hung Yat”) to carry out certain works on inter alia pipes located in D’s Property (the “2010 Works”). Exactly what were carried out however are in dispute. 13.According to the approved building plans, the Flat Roof was an open one. At some stage prior to 2015, it had become entirely enclosed and covered. There is no dispute that that was the result of unauthorized building works. Some of the unauthorized building works were removed in about August 2016. Nothing turns on those removal works. 14.On 8 February 2015, soil water leaked into Ps’ Property. The soil water contained human wastes and urine. D accepted during cross-examination that the leakage was serious. D received a complaint. D then engaged Hung Yat to carry out certain other works on inter alia pipes located in D’s Property (the “2015 Works”). The circumstances that led to the 2015 Works and what they exactly were are not agreed. 15.The parties are in dispute as to whether water leakage had continued or ceased after completion of the 2015 Works. E. The pleaded cases E.1. Ps’ pleaded case 16.The Writ herein was issued on 18 February 2015. It was indorsed with a Statement of Claim. The Amended Statement of Claim in the current form (“ASOC”) was filed on 30 June 2015. 17.Ps aver that since around 8 February 2015, large quantities of soil water have been continuously escaping from D’s Property into Ps’ Property[2]. They aver that the problem was caused by D’s negligence (or that of her occupants, tenants, servants or agents), and that it constituted a breach of the DMC. The particulars of negligence and breach provided by Ps under paragraph 4 of the ASOC are as follows:
18.It is Ps’ further and/or alternative claim that the soil water constituted a nuisance caused or permitted by D (or by D’s occupants, tenants, servants or agents)[3]. 19.As regards loss and damage, Ps plead (1) HK$200,000 for estimated cost of concrete repair and redecoration works on the structural ceiling; (2) HK$40,000 for estimated cost of insurance for reinstatement works; (3) HK$40,000 for estimated cost of protection, general cleaning and sterilisation; and (4) HK$30,000 for estimated cost of packing, transportation and temporary storage for before and after the reinstatement works[4]. 20.Ps further aver that Ps’ Property is practically unusable so that they have suffered a loss of enjoyment and use of the premises and/or a loss of rental in the amount of HK$50,000 per month[5]. 21.In addition to the above damages, Ps also seek an injunction restraining D from allowing water to escape from her property to Ps’ Property so as to cause a nuisance[6]. E.2. D’s pleaded defence, and the further and better particulars provided 22.In her Defence, D denies that soil water have been continuously escaping onto Ps’ Property and put Ps to strict proof thereof[7]. 23.D avers that in about 2011 or 2012, she was informed by the management office that there were water seepage problems in Ps’ Property. With the consent of the Incorporated Owners of Nos 403 and 405 (the “IO”), she engaged a contractor to re-route the part of the common sewers and pipes that were located in D’s Property (ie the 2010 Works). Thereafter, there were no complaints of any water seepage problems, whether from Ps, the occupants of Ps’ Property or the occupants of D’s Property. She denies that she and/or any of her agents has made any unauthorised modifications and/or alterations to the common sewers and pipes in D’s Property[8]. 24.D further denies that the escape of soil water onto Ps’ Property was caused by the negligence of her (or of her tenants or agents) or was a breach of the DMC. She avers that on or around 8 February 2015, she received an oral complaint from one Ms Wong (who, as it became clear by the time of the trial, was in fact P2) of water seepage from D’s Property to Ps’ Property. Upon investigation, D’s contractor informed her that the common sewage pipes and the manhole connecting the entire building located in Ps’ Property were clogged. However, Ps refused D’s offer to help Ps remedy the situation by unclogging the manhole and the common sewage pipes located in Ps’ Property. D therefore had no alternative but to instruct her contractor to carry out unclogging works which involved re-routing parts of the common sewage pipes located in D’s Property (ie the 2015 Works). The 2015 Works were commenced on about 9 February 2015 and were completed within a week, upon which D’s contractor attended Ps’ Property and one Mr Cheng confirmed that there was no longer any water seepage problem in Ps’ Property[9]. 25.In respect of Ps’ plea of loss and damages, D avers that the damages claimed in relation to any escape of soil water allegedly caused by the alterations of the common sewers or pipes were not reasonably foreseeable at the time[10]. She likewise pleads that the loss of rental income as claimed by Ps is too remote and/or not reasonably foreseeable[11]. D further avers Ps have been using and occupying Ps’ Property for their own real estate agency business at all material times[12]. 26.In her Answer to Ps’ Requests for Further and Better Particulars of the Defence (the “D/F&BP”), D has provided, among others, the following particulars:
E.3. Ps’ reply 27.In their Reply, Ps aver that even if D had obtained the consent of the IO to re-route the common sewers and pipes located in D’s Property, the re-routing works are still unauthorised modifications and/or alterations since D had failed to obtain the consent of the Building Authority for the same. Further or alternatively, the escape of the soil water from D’s Property onto Ps’ Property was caused by the negligence of D (or her tenants or agents) and/or constituted nuisance irrespective of whether D had obtained the consent of the IO and/or the Building Authority[18]. F. The issues 28.Parties have agreed on a statement of issues in dispute. It sets out the following issues:
G. The witnesses G.1. Parties’ witnesses 29.Ps have called 2 factual witnesses. They are P2 and the Son. P2 has given one witness statement[19] (“P2/WS”). The Son has given two[20] (“Son/WS1” and “Son/WS2”). 30.D gave evidence. She is the only factual witness for the defence. She has given one witness statement[21] (“D/WS”). 31.In respect of experts:
G.2. The credibility and reliability of the factual witnesses 32.I remind myself when considering a witness’ credibility the importance of considering the inherent likelihood or unlikelihood of the witness’ evidence, the consistency of the witness’ evidence with undisputed or indisputable evidence, with contemporaneous conduct and documents, and the internal consistency of the witness’ evidence. I need to consider the totality of the evidence. I warn myself against attaching undue weight on demeanour, though demeanour is obviously relevant when considering credibility. 33.For the following reasons, I do not find D to be a credible or reliable witness:
34.I have also considered the evidence of P2 and the Son. I find their evidence inherently probable. I have detected no material inconsistencies, whether internal or external. I find them to be honest and reliable witnesses. 35.To the extent of any difference between the evidence of P2 and the Son of the one part and that given by D of the other, I prefer and accept the evidence given by P2 and the Son. G.3. The 2 experts 36.I have considered SC’s evidence. He inspected Ps’ and D’s Properties on 9 and 11 February 2015. Though he could not have access into the 1st Floor Residential Unit, he was able to observe the Flat Roof from outside. He rendered the SC/2015 Rep afterwards. He was able to give evidence on the extent of the seepage on 8 February 2015. He was also able to give evidence on the state of the Flat Roof, in so far as he could observe it from outside, before the 2015 Works. Photographs were taken. He carried out another inspection on 4 February 2016 after which he rendered SC/Rep. Photographs were again taken. The 2 sets of photographs have been compared for changes. In general, I find his evidence reasonable, consistent with the photographs taken at various stages, and is convincing. 37.I have considered GL’s evidence. I do not find his evidence helpful or convincing:
H. Findings of facts 38.I make the following specific findings of facts. 39.I accept SC’s evidence that sometime prior to 9 February 2015:
40.I record that SC has also expressed certain opinion to the effect that there had been unauthorized alterations to the communal rain water pipes and communal waste water pipes. I do not find those opinions relevant save as background. I would however if necessary also accept those opinions, which are consistent with the photographs produced. 41.D pleads at §7(a) of her Defence that as part of the 2010 Works, she engaged a contractor to re-route the part of the common sewers and pipes which were located in D’s Property. I so find. 42.At §8 of D/WS[37], she said in respect of the 2010 Works that Hung Yat “把部份原有的污水喉及清水喉廢除，然後安裝新的污水喉及清水喉從403號二樓平台的地面經過”. But no such pipes on the floor of the Flat Roof can be seen in photographs P11[38] and P12[39] taken on 9 February 2015. 43.D says, at §6 of D/WS[40] in respect of the 2010 Works, that “該裝修工程包括更換二樓平台的地台及於二樓平台鋪設新的防水層，工程費用約5萬港元”. D adopted D/WS as her evidence-in-chief without seeking leave to make any change thereto. 44.Upon cross-examination, D claimed §6 of D/WS was wrong, and that she did not change or replace the floor surface of the Flat Roof, but just the grout between the floor tiles. She claimed that the Flat Roof had been raised when she purchased D’s Property, and she only knew about it subsequently. 45.I reject her denial in that regard. On balance, I find that it was part of the 2010 Works contracted by D that the floor of the Flat Roof was changed and the waterproofing membrane re-laid. I also draw the inference that in the course of changing the floor of the Flat Roof, D elevated the floor and caused the original communal soil pipes to be embedded under the floor of the Flat Roof. 46.On 8 February 2015, large amount of soil water leaked into Ps’ Property. 47.The leakage was serious, and I accept P2’s and the Son’s evidence in that regard. 48.In respect of the cause of the leakage, I accept the agreed opinion of SC and GL that the original communal sewage pipe embedded in the floor of the Flat Roof of D’s Property was leaking, and soil water seeped down into Ps’ Property. I accept also SC’s opinion in SC/2015 Rep[41] as explained by him under cross-examination that the waterproofing system of the floor of the Flat Roof, whilst not the source of the leakage, was defective and could not hold the leakage. 49.I reject D’s evidence about she and her contractor attending together Ps’ Property on 8 February 2015. I reject also her evidence that she and her contractor offered help but was turned down by P2. I accept P2’s evidence that D on 8 February 2015 just visited Ps’ Property briefly for several minutes, and did not offer any help as alleged. P2 made repeated demands and requests to D to carry out repairs or to take remedial actions. On 10 February 2015, Ps through their solicitors wrote to D and urged her to take constructive remedial action immediately[42]. 50.SC in SC/Rep[43] compares the photographs he took in February 2015 with those he took in February 2016 after the 2015 Works. In respect of the 2015 Works, I accept his findings[44] that:
51.I reject D’s evidence[45] that her contractor had told her that and one Mr Cheng confirmed to him that there was no longer any water seepage problem in Ps’ Property. Her contractor has not been called as a witness. I accept the Son’s evidence that around middle of February 2015, a person introducing himself to be D’s contractor went to Ps’ Property. He told the Son that he had carried out some works to the common sewage pipes and asked whether the water leakage had stopped. At that time, large amount of water was still leaking onto Ps’ Property. The Son therefore told the contractor so and requested him to fix the problem as soon as possible. I accept further his evidence that since around March 2018, the leakage problem has improved. There has been no more dripping, though there have still been damp patches. 52.After the 2015 Works, leakage continued. Indeed, GL under cross-examination agreed that that was so. His evidence in this regard is as follows:
I. Issue 1 — the cause and source of the leakage on 8 February 2015 53.The experts are able to reach agreement on this issue[46]. Their opinion is that the “original embedded communal sewage pipe running on [D’s Property] was found leakage and then seeped downward to [Ps’ Property]”. I have so found above. I have also found that the waterproofing system of the floor of the Flat Roof, whilst not the source of the leakage, was defective and could not hold the leakage. 54.Relying on Hui Ling Ling v Sky Field Development Ltd, unrep, HCA 35/2007 (8 May 2012), per Recorder Yuen SC at §23, Ms Kung submitted that Ps bear the burden of proof to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the source of water was from D’s Property. I have made my finding that it was. 55.For completeness, I accept SC’s evidence given in Court that when he conducted the inspection in February2015, he inspected the manholes within the Back Yard and nearby. He found that none of them were congested. I do not accept that the congestion of any of the manholes was the cause of the leakage on 8 February 2015. J. Issue 2 — Whether the leakage on 8 February 2015 caused by D’s negligence 56.Parties deal also with the issue of breach of DMC under this Issue. I will do the same. 57.Ms Kung submitted that Ps have to prove firstly, that (1) D owes a duty of care to Ps in maintaining the communal soil and waste water pipes in D’s Property and the waterproofing membrane of the Building; (2) that D has breached the duty by failure to maintain; and (3) the failure to maintain has caused damages to Ps’ Property. 58.I have found that it was D who caused the original soil pipes to be embedded in the elevated floor of the Flat Roof and the waterproofing membrane re-laid. 59.In this regard, I accept Mr Li’s submissions[47], relying on Yik Yuen Ling v Tso Wing Yan, unrep, DCCJ 813/2014 (18 October 2017) and Cheng Pan v Chan Cheong Shun [2018] HKDC 1189, that by modifying the Flat Roof and embedding and re-routing the original soil pipes, D has rendered the embedded pipes and the waterproofing membrane physically inaccessible for repairs by the IO. Given the literal close proximity between Ps’ and D’s Properties, the obvious foreseeability of loss, I agree that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty upon D to keep the embedded soil pipes and the waterproofing membrane in proper repair. 60.Relying on the Building Management Ordinance Cap 344[48], Wide Power Corporation Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Manhattan Court, unrep, HCA 1485/2013 (29 July 2016) at §§24-30, 85-87 and Tai Fong Trade Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of Nos 167 & 169 Hoi Bun Road, unrep, LDBM 1/2006 (11 November 2008), §§26-28, Ms Kung submitted that D owes no duty of care to Ps in maintaining the communal soil and waste water pipes and the waterproofing membrane as they are the common parts of the Building. In none of those cases were the relevant parts of the buildings in dispute embedded in the way like D did in the present case. Those cases are in my view distinguishable. 61.By failing to keep the Flat Roof, the embedded soil pipes and waterproof membrane under repair so as not to allow any soil water to leak into Ps’ Property, D has in my view breached her duty, which breach is causative of Ps’ losses. 62.In respect of the DMC:
63.I deal with 2 further points here:
K. Issues 3 — Whether the leakage on 8 February 2015 a nuisance caused by D 64.Ms Kung, relying on Clerk and Lindsell on Torts 22nd ed, Ch §§20-01 and 20-10, 20-40 to 20-42, summarized[50] the relevant principles on private nuisance in effect as follows:
65.Ms Kung further cited Cheung Sau Ling & Ng Ping Hon v Cheng Lai Chong, unrep, CACV 268/1998 (9 April 1999), where Woo J (as he then was) summarized the relevant principles on nuisance as follows (the judgment being in Chinese):
66.The above are not disputed by Mr Li, and are not controversial. I apply them. 67.I have found that it was D who caused the floor of the Flat Roof to be elevated, the waterproofing membrane to be re-laid, and the communal soil pipes to be embedded. Soil water leaked into Ps’ Property on 8 February 2015. D became aware of that. I have rejected D’s evidence that she together with her contractor attended Ps’ Property and offered to help. I have accepted P2’s evidence that D only attended Ps’ Property briefly on 8 February 2015 and did not offer to help. The leakage was not abated that day. Ps’ solicitors had to write to D and urged her to take constructive remedial action immediately. The seepage of soil water interfered with Ps’ enjoyment of Ps’ Property, is not ordinary domestic use of premises, and in my view constituted private nuisance. 68.Ms Kung’s main submission on this issue was in fact made on the basis that it was not D who elevated the floor of the Flat Roof and embedded the communal soil pipes, and that it was P2 who had declined D’s offer for assistance. She submitted[51] that Ps have to firstly, satisfy the Court that D knew or ought to have known of the existence of the nuisance and secondly, that she was negligent in that she failed to take effective steps to abate the nuisance taking into account her actual capacities and circumstances. 69.Given my findings above, and in particular my rejection of D’s evidence on her alleged offer to help, I would if necessary have held that D2 had committed actionable nuisance on the basis submitted by Ms Kung even if it were D’s predecessor-in-title who elevated the floor of the Flat Roof and embedded the communal soil pipes. 70.Given my findings relevant to this Issue, I find that D has also breached Clause 3(s)(ii) of the DMC. L. Issue 4 — Whether water leakage after the 2015 Works 71.I have found that D did not as she claimed immediately offer help. I have rejected D’s evidence that her contractor had told her that and one Mr Cheng confirmed to him that there was no longer any water seepage problem in Ps’ Property. I have accepted the Son’s evidence that he did not say that to D’s contractor. 72.On 4 February 2016, SC inspected Ps’ Property again. That was one year after the main leakage. He conducted moisture tests on the ceiling at various spots. He confirms, in the light of the moisture content readings, that there was still seepage at various spots[52]. 73.As I have pointed out above, GL under cross-examination agreed that leakage continued after the 2015 Works. M. Issue 5 — Whether water leakage after the 2015 Works caused by the re-routing works and/or was from D’s Property 74.I have set out above the nature of the 2015 Works caused to be done by D. 75.In respect of the source of the leakage after the 2015 Works, SC has expressed the following opinion[53]:
76.SC expresses similar opinions in J Report/2[54]:
He has also in J Report/2 expressed his views as to why other possibilities can be excluded. 77.I accept SC’s opinion. As I have observed above, the possibilities suggested by GL are no more than unsubstantiated possibilities. 78.During cross-examination, D accepted that since the 2010 Works, no further waterproofing works had been done to the floor of the Flat Roof. 79.I find that despite the 2015 Works, there remained seepage from D’s Property, the waterproofing of the floor of the Flat Roof remained defective, and the seepage remained unabated. N. Issue 6 — Whether the re-routing works on the common sewage pipes were carried out in accordance with the required standard 80.SC and GL are able to agree on this issue[55]:
81.However, GL accepted during cross-examination that the 2015 Works were covered by the Minor Works Control Scheme. The Buildings Department was required to be notified of the same. But to GL’s knowledge, the Buildings Department had not been. 82.In that sense, the 2015 Works were unauthorized. O. Conclusion on liability 83.On the basis of my findings above, I hold that Ps have established its case on liability against D on all bases of negligence, breach of DMC and nuisance. P. Issue 7 — The cost of the remedial works to stop the leakage and to repair the damage to Ps’ Property 84.Relying on McGregor on Damages (20th edition) at paragraphs 37-006 to 37-010, Mr Li submitted the costs of repair must be reasonable in that the work must be necessary and the charges must not be extravagant. The principle is not in dispute. 85.SC and GL deal with the issue in J Report/2. The items of works they deem necessary and their costs are set out in a table under §7.1 of the J Report/2 (the “Table”). They are not able to reach agreement. SC’s total estimated costs is HK$495,000.00 and GL’s total estimated costs is HK$155,000.00. 86.SC was cross-examined by Ms Kung on the estimate:
87.In his written closing, Mr Li submitted that:
88.For alleged loss of rent, Ms Kung has highlighted P2’s and the Son’s evidence that Ps’ Property has never been rented out. Ps’ Property has been used as their estate agency business since 1987. I accept Ms Kung’s submission that no basis for loss of rental income has been made out. 89.For loss of enjoyment, Ms Kung submitted that the law is that there is no scientific way of translating inconvenience and discomfort into a sum of money, and the award has to be a conventional sum. In the case of Leung Yung Chun v Chan Wing Sang [2000] 1 HKLRD 456, the court awarded $80,000 for damages and inconvenience caused by the water leakage which lasted for a period of nearly 3 years. In the case of Lee Wai Chuen v Cheung Chor Keung, unrep, DCCJ 3098/2006 (7 January 2011), the court awarded $50,000 for damages, distress, discomfort and inconvenience caused by the water leakage which lasted for a period of about 2-3 years. In the case of Ngan Ping Chi v Lam Chi Hao Louis, unrep, DCCJ 462/2003 (31 December 2003), the court awarded $20,000 for damages, distress and inconvenience caused by the water leakage which lasted for a period of over 2 years. 90.I accept the approach submitted by Ms Kung. I have further considered the following matters:
91.In all the circumstances, I assess the damages under this head at HK$400,000. R. Permanent Injunction? 92.I note that none of the agreed issues relate to the grant of an injunction. 93.I note again that the leakage has improved. 94.I have further considered Chiu Hung Shun, Paul v So Ka Tai, unrep, CACV 136/2005 (5 December 2005) cited by Ms Kung[57]:
95.In my view, the same observations are apposite on the facts of the present case. 96.I decline to make the permanent injunction sought. S. Overall conclusion 97.I give judgment in favor of Ps in the total sum of HK$800,500. 98.I dismiss Ps’ claim for a permanent injunction. T. Interest and costs 99.I grant interest at judgment rate from the date of the Writ to the date of judgment, and thereafter at judgment rate until payment. 100.I make a costs order nisi that Ps shall have 80% of the costs of the action, to be taxed if not agreed. Any application for variation shall be made by letter within 14 days to this Court, in which case further directions will be given on the papers.
Mr Philip S Y Li, instructed by Lau, Chan & Ko, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Ms Selina Kung, instructed by Chung & Kwan, for the Defendant [1] See the DMC at [B/277-309]. [2] §3 of the ASOC. [3] §5 of the ASOC. [4] §6 of the ASOC. [5] §§7-9 of the ASOC. [6] §§(1)-(4) of the prayer of the ASOC. [7] §6 of the Defence. [8] §§7-8 of the Defence. [9] §10 of the Defence. [10] §9 of the Defence. [11] §13 of the Defence. [12] §14 of the Defence. [13] Answers to Request 2 under §7(a) in D/F&BP. [14] Answers to Request 3 under §7(a) in D/F&BP. [15] Answers to Request 1 under §7(c) in D/F&BP. [16] Answers to Request 2 under §10(d) in D/F&BP [A/32-33]. [17] Answers to Request 1 under §10(f) in D/F&BP [A/33-34]. [18] §§3-4 of the Reply. [19] [A/91-105]. [20] [A/78-90] and [A1/90-1—90-5], the 2nd of which I granted Ps leave to file on the first day of the trial. [21] [A/106-117]. [22] [B/222-314]. [23] [B/118-315]. [24] [B/316-349]. [25] [C/350-468] and [C/500-632]. [26] [C/469-499]. [27] [A/111]. [28] [B/226]. [29] §10(d). [30] Answers to Request 2 under §10(d) in D/F&BP. [31] [A/108]. [32] [A/109]. [33] [B/249]. [34] [B/250]. [35] [B/330]. [36] [B/165]. [37] [A/109]. [38] [B/249]. [39] [B/250]. [40] [A/108]. [41] §6.2.b. at [B/228]. [42] [D/670-671]. [43] Appendix VII thereof, at [B/213-217]. [44] §5.4 of SC/Rep at [B126-127]. [45] At §15 of D/WS [A/112]. [46] §4.1 of J Report/2 [C/505]. [47] §§47-52 of his written opening and §28 of his written closing. [48] Sections 2, 16, 18(1)(a) and Schedule 1 thereof. [49] [D/768]. [50] At §47 of her written closing. [51] §69 of her written closing. [52] [B/188-199 & 202]. [53] §6.3 of SC/Rep at [B/129]. [54] [C/508]. [55] §4.4 of J Report/2 [C/506]. [56] [C/512]. [57] §45 of her written opening and §53 of her written closing. |
Cases cited in this judgment