Read the full judgment text of HCCT 73/2020 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 30 November 2021 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction law — Guarantee — Expert evidence admissibility — Defects in waterproofing — Timing and foundation for expert opinion — Application for leave to adduce expert evidence dismissed. Plaintiff claimed defects in roof waterproofing works guaranteed by Defendant caused damage and required rectification. Defendant denied defects and attributed damage to third-party removal of green roof and demolition works post-completion. Plaintiff sought leave to admit expert opinion based on site inspection after demolition and removal works. Court held expert evidence is subject to leave, especially when relying on factual findings requiring expertise. Plaintiff’s expert lacked sufficient factual evidence foundation; relevant report was inadmissible; photographs and CCTV footage insufficient to establish defects’ cause. Architect expert was not suitably qualified to opine on technical cause and repair costs. Application was ill-prepared and would waste court time and costs. Application dismissed with costs to Defendant.
Legal issues: Admissibility and relevance of expert evidence
Outcome: Application for leave to adduce expert evidence dismissed; Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant’s costs.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases