Atlantic Link Ltd v. The Incorporated Owners of Yen Ying Building and Others
Read the full judgment text of DCCJ 1306/2018 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 3 August 2022.
1. This matter appeared to be a simple and straightforward water leakage case at the pre-trial review hearing. It turned out to be a full blown trial involving rigorous cross-examinations and complicated legal arguments.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases
|
DCCJ 1306/2018 [2022] HKDC 825 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 1306 OF 2018 -------------------- BETWEEN
--------------------- Before: His Honour Judge Kent Yee in Court Dates of Hearing: 14 to 16, 19 to 21 October, 21 and 30 December 2020 Date of Judgment: 3 August 2022 -------------------- JUDGMENT -------------------- Introduction 1.This matter appeared to be a simple and straightforward water leakage case at the pre-trial review hearing. It turned out to be a full blown trial involving rigorous cross-examinations and complicated legal arguments. 2.P is the registered owner of a property known as Office I, 2nd Floor, Yen Ying Building (“the Building”), 221 Jaffe Road, Hong Kong (“2I”). P is also the registered owner of two other units known as Office G (“2G”) and Office H (“2H”) on the 2nd floor of the Building. In this action, P complains about the water seepage problem causing damage to 2I since August 2015 and claims against Ds for, among other things, damages and injunctions. 3.There are 15 defendants, some of them are represented by different counsel and some of them act in person. An introduction of them at the outset is necessary. 4.D1 is the Incorporated Owners of the Building whereas D2 was a property management company appointed by D1 to manage the Building from May 2000 onwards. I was informed by way of the parties’ written submissions that D2 ceased to be the manager of the Building on 30 June 2020. 5.D3, D5, D6, D7 and D8 are registered owners of Offices A (“2A”), C(“2C”), D (“2D”), E(“2E”) and F (“2F”) on the 2nd floor of the Building respectively. The late Mr Lo was the registered owner of Office B (“2B”) on the 2nd floor of the Building and D4 is the personal representative of his estate. For easy reference in this Judgment, D4 is regarded as the registered owner of 2B. P, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8 are collectively referred to as “the 2/F Owners” in this Judgment. 6.D9, D12, D13, D14 and D15 are respectively the registered owners of Offices A, E, G, I, J on the 3rd floor of the Building (respectively (“3A”), E(“3E”), G(“3G”), I(“3I”) and J (“3J”)). D10 is the registered owner of both Offices B, C and H (respectively “3B”, “3C” and “3H”) and D11 is the registered owners of both Offices D and F (respectively “3D” and “3F”) on the 3rd floor. D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 and D15 are collectively referred to as “the 3/F Owners” in this Judgment. 7.On each of the 2nd and the 3rd Floors, there are a communal female toilet and a communal male toilet. The two female toilets are the focal point of this action and it is the pleaded case of P that water originating from the female toilet on the 2nd floor (“T2”) and the female toilet on the 3rd Floor (“T3”) (collectively “Ts”) has been seeping into 2I thereby causing damage to 2I. 8.At this juncture, a brief introduction of the Building would be helpful. The construction of the Building was completed in or about 1977 and the Deed of Mutual Covenant (“the DMC”) in relation to the Building is dated 26 March 1977. The Building is at present a composite development with shop units on the ground floor, office premises on 2nd floor and 3rd floor and residential units on 4/F to 22/F. There is a church on the ground floor (“the Church”). 9.On or about 7 August 1984, a Sub-Deed of Mutual Covenant (“the Sub-DMC”) was executed. 14 equal undivided shares of the 130 shares of the Building were allocated to 9 office units on the 2nd floor, viz, 2A to 2I. 10.As shown in the floor plans of the 2nd floor and the 3rd floor, T3 adjoins 3J sharing a partition wall and likewise T2 adjoins 2I sharing another partition wall (“the Wall”). Inside 2I, a manager room is partitioned sharing about one third of the Wall with a panel of window on the inner side of the external wall facing the street. 3J is immediately above 2I and 2H and likewise T3 is immediately above T2. Immediately beneath T2 is a function room of the Church. 11.Direct references to Ts in the DMC and the Sub-DMC are as follows:
12.By an assignment dated 12 December 1984, Hoi Tong Construction Company Limited acquired 2I. It is unknown when P acquired 2I from the said company or in fact they are the same entity. This is irrelevant for the present purpose and it is not in dispute that P has started renting out 2I in the 1990s. 13.Madam Kwan is a practising solicitor. She is both the partner of Messrs Ip Kwan & Co (“IK”), the solicitors for P, and the director of P. Madam Chen is Administration Assistant of IK and since about 2011, she has handled the rental matters in respect of 2I. 14.The last tenant of 2I is Fullhold Design & Consultants Limited (“Fullhold”). Fullhold became the tenant of P occupying 2I in 2013 and left 2I prematurely before the termination of its renewed tenancy on or about 31 August 2017 allegedly due to the water seepage problem. Madam Ng was in charge of Fullhold at 2I and time and again complained to P since August 2015 about the water seepage problem. Issues to be determined 15.Mr Sham, together with Ms Chun, for P, has identified the following three central issues calling for determination by this court:
16.I agree that these are indeed the pertinent questions arranged in logical order. I also agree with Mr Wong, together with Ms Li, for D2 that I should consider the actual scope and nature of the duties owed by Ds, if any, and whether such Ds have done sufficiently to discharge such duties. I should also determine the quantum of damages recoverable by P and the question of apportionment. I agree with his submissions and shall look into these matters. 17.I should add that Ds are very much divided despite their joint legal representation at the outset. D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13 and D15 were represented by Messrs. S.K. Lam, Alfred Chan & Co. (“SKLAC”) and filed their joint defence (“the Joint Defence”). 18.At the trial, these Ds went separately ways. Each of D1 and D2 instructed its own legal representatives. So did D7 and D8 on the one part and D9 and D12 on the other. D3, D4, D6, D10, D11, D13 and D15 acted in person. However, they have not applied to amend the Joint Defence or file another defence for their purpose. 19.These changes of legal representation are understandable. D2 and D7 are subsequently targeted by D1, D3, D4, D6, D10, D11, D13 and D15. The latter 8 Ds, to a large extent, share the view that D2 and D7 have badly handled P’s water seepage problem without their full consent and knowledge. 20.Belatedly, D1 issued a Contribution and/or Indemnity Notice dated 13 July 2020 to D2 and D7. Likewise, D3, D4, D6, D10, D11, D13 and D15 issued an almost identical document dated 23 September 2020 against D2 and D7. Despite the frequent complaints about D2, D7 and SKLAC of the latter group of Ds acting in person at trial, this court made it clear that their Notices could and would not be dealt with at this stage. These Ds failed to apply to the court for directions in respect of the Notices pursuant to O.16, r.8(4), Rules of the District Court. It is impossible to handle their general allegations against D2 and D7 at this trial. 21.On the other hand, D14, independently represented throughout, issued a Contribution and Indemnity Notice dated 2 September 2020 against all other Ds. In its Notice, it is stated that, as a matter of law, its co-defendants should be liable at the same time on a joint and several basis by virtue of their undivided shares in and/ or the provisions under the DMC of the Building. 22.I shall not separately deal with D14’s Notice. D14 did not apply for the requisite directions in the first place and more importantly, its Notice is unnecessary and serves no meaningful purpose. 23.D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D10, D11, D13 and D15 have indicated to this court in writing by separate documents that their position. They agree that the water seepage originates from Ts and the external wall of 2I in accordance with the conclusions of P’s expert report. They further agree that T2 is accountable for 50% of the damage of 2I, T3 40% and the external wall 10%. They also agree to pay their share of certain amount of damages. 24.In the closing submission, Mr Wong submits that D2’s primary position is that D2 owed no duty to P in respect of Ts. And even such a duty existed, it was only one of reasonable care and D2 had already discharged such duty. Lastly, Mr Wong submits that P has failed to prove the actual source of water seepage up to the requisite standard. 25.D7 and D8 refuses to accept that Ts were ever in lack of repair and caused the water seepage to 2I. They seek to challenge the conclusion of the joint experts. They further contend that the damage caused to 2I did not lead to the loss now claimed by P. 26.D9 and D12 take a similar stance save that they are only concerned with T3. 27.D14 denies the allegation that T3 is one of the sources of the water seepage to 2I. It has engaged its own expert Mr Victor Ho for the purpose of these proceedings. Duties of Ds in relation to T2 and T3 28.I believe that stage is adequately set and I start my analysis of the central issues in turn. 29.P in its pleaded case relies on the aforementioned provisions in the DMC and the Sub-DMC and says that P itself, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8 are responsible for the repair and maintenance of T2 and D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 and D15 are responsible for the repair and maintenance of T3. 30.All these Ds make an admission on this in their respective defences. All these Ds did not deny their duties at trial. D5 and D14 have filed their own separate defences and all other Ds have filed the Joint Defence through SKLAC. 31.The basis on which P says D1 and D2 have the duty to manage Ts is different. Its pleaded case is that the registered owners of the units on the 2nd and 3rd floors of the Building have appointed, authorised and/or dedicated the management of Ts to D1 and/or D2 and thereafter D1 and/or D2 have assumed the responsibility and have the de facto control over Ts. 32.P gives the following particulars in respect of this contention:
33.In the Joint Defence, in reply to the said allegations of P, it is admitted, contrary to the fact, that the 2/F Owners jointly own T2 and have appointed D2 to manage T2 at their own expense. Then it is denied that the 3/F Owners have appointed, authorized and/or delegated the management of T3 to D1 and/or D2. They further aver that the 3/F Owners had arranged their own cleaner to clean and maintain T3. 34.With regard to T2, D1 and D2 aver that D2 kept the key to T2 and the security guard employed by D2 would provide the key to the owners, tenants and/or licensees of the units on the 2nd floor for their use of T2. It is expressly admitted that D1 charges and receives monthly management fees through D2 for the management and maintenance of T2 and D1 and D2 agree that D2 would maintain T2 and not T3. 35.It is further admitted that D2 managed and maintained T2 by employing and deploying cleaners or cleaning contractor to clean T2. Lastly it is averred that the staff of D2 including the caretakers and cleaners use T2 for toileting purposes and for the purposes relating to the management and maintenance of the Building. 36.Given the state of the pleadings, I refused to accept any cross-examination of P’s witnesses on the issue as to whether D2 was responsible for the management and maintenance of T2 in the course of the trial. 37.Notwithstanding this, Mr Wong, in his closing submissions, goes to great length to suggest that the pleaded case of P against D2 is inadequate and D2 has not really accepted the full duty of maintenance in relating to T2 in the Joint Defence. 38.I am not persuaded by his submissions despite his admirable effort. 39.In paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim, it is pleaded that the 2/F Owners are responsible for the repair and maintenance of T2. As said, this paragraph is admitted in the Joint Defence. 40.Then in paragraph 12 of the Statement of Claim, P alleges that the 2/F Owners and 3/F Owners have appointed, authorized and/or delegated the management of T2 and T3 to D1 and D2. The context dictates that the management duties of T2 include the duty of repair and maintenance of T2. The particulars given thereunder are only examples of how D2 performed such duties and they are not meant to be exhaustive. 41.Thus, I agree with Mr Sham that, on a fair reading of paragraph 12 of the Joint Defence, it is clear and unambiguous that D2 admits that it had the duty to manage and maintain T2. Those particulars concerning how D2 managed and maintained T2 were merely examples and cannot be taken as its conclusive job description. 42.I also note that in the Joint Statement of Issues signed by all parties dated 6 September 2019, D2 did not raise any issues about its admitted duty to manage and maintain T2. 43.D2 has not made any application to amend the Joint Defence to qualify the admissions made in respect of its duty. Nor has D2 made any application to withdraw or resile from the admissions in paragraph 12 of the Joint Defence. 44.In the circumstances, I need not consider whether I should exercise my discretion to allow D2 to withdraw or resile from the admissions. Even such an application had been made, it would not have been allowed on the application of the guiding principles expounded in Braybrook v Basildon and Thurrock University NHS Trust [2004] EWHC 3352 (QB) at para.45, cited with approval by the English Court of Appeal in Sowerby v Charlton [2006] 1 WLR 568 at para.35 and the Court of Appeal in Lo Li Li Lily v Lui Fung He [2016] 3 HKC 483 per Kwan JA at paras.19-21. 45.Mr Wong points out that all along P has mistaken that T2 is a common area of the Building and this erroneous belief led P to believe that D2 had the duty to repair and maintenance T2. He further points out that the evidence shows that D2 was not contractually bound to repair and maintain T2 under its property management contracts with D1. 46.I do not find any merit in this submission. It is true that P in its pre-action letter dated 1 March 2018 and Madam Kwan in her witness statement stated that T2 is a common area (and so is T3), P’s pleaded case contains no such mistake and its claim is not made on this basis. P relies on the express specific duties of the 2/F and 3/F Owners under the DMC and the Sub-DMC and not their purported ownership of Ts. Mr Sham makes it clear in his opening submission that Ts are not common parts of the Building. Curiously, it is D2 and the 2/F Owners except P which admit that the 2/F Owners jointly own T2 and have appointed D2 to manage it at their own expense in the Joint Defence. 47.Moreover, given the admissions in the Joint Defence, it is not open to D2 to argue against its duty to repair and maintain T2. Had there been no such admissions, P could have adduced further evidence to make good its allegations. It is unfair for D2 to wait until the trial to take a different position. 48.Mr Sham submits that in light of the admissions of D2, it is not necessary to rely on P’s alternative case based on the principles of assumed responsibility. I agree with him and indeed it adds little to the claim of P given the admissions of the relevant Ds. 49.Mr Sham refers this court to Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 A.C. 145. Simply put, it was held that where a person assumes responsibility to perform professional or quasi-professional services for another who relied on those services, then the relationship was sufficient to give rise to a duty on the part of the person providing the services to exercise skill and care in doing so. 50.Mr Wong’s objection to this alternative case is misplaced. Firstly, he submits that the allegation of assumption of responsibility is immediately preceded by the allegation that D1 and/or D2 have been appointed, authorised and/or delegated the management of Ts by the 2/F and 3/F Owners. He argues that in the absence of authorisation or delegation, there cannot be any assumption of responsibility. 51.I cannot accept his submission. Not a single owner out of the 2/F Owners says that D2 managed and maintained T2 without his or her authorization. No such allegation is made in the pleading. Nor does D2 ever deny its management and maintenance of T2 with or without the authorization of any of the 2/F Owners including P. 52.Secondly, Mr Wong argues that it will give rise to difficult issues if this court holds that a property manager can be held liable for activities carried on in privately owned premises. I do not think that the principles on assumption of responsibility cease to have application to a property manager in respect of his management of a private place or in fact any matters even if there is an assumption of responsibility coupled with the concomitant reliance. 53.In the present case, D2 did voluntarily undertake the provision of such services. P and other 2/F Owners relied on D1 and D2 to perform professional services in the management and maintenance of T2 and in particular to procure repair and remedial work to be done at T2. Hence, on the particular facts of the present case, the principles of assumption of responsibility are invoked and D2 did owe an implied duty to exercise reasonable care and skill in its management and maintenance of T2. 54.T3 calls for separate consideration. The relevant Ds do not accept that D2 was tasked with the management and maintenance of T3 in their pleadings. The 3/F Owners do not admit having appointed, authorized and/or delegated to D2 such duties. 55.P has failed to adduce credible evidence to show that D1 and D2 have ever taken up the management and maintenance of T3 by reason of the 3/F Owners’ appointment, authorisation and/or delegation despite the express denial in the Joint Defence. Its pleaded case is not borne out by evidence. In fact, Mr Sham makes no submission on the alleged management and maintenance of T3 by D1 and/or D2 in his written closing submissions. 56.In the Joint Defence, it is pleaded that the 3/F Owners had arranged their own cleaner to clean and maintain T3 and D1 and D2 deny that they were ever responsible for the maintenance of T3. 57.Mr Li, the director of D10 and D11, stated in his witness statement that cleaning worker employed by D2, namely, Madam Ying, took up the cleaning job of T3. D10 and D11 paid her a monthly fee of HK$500. This appears to be in support of the allegation in the Joint Defence. 58.In her witness statement, Madam Cheung, Housing Manager of the Property Division of D14, stated that D10 and D11 took the lead among the 3/F Owners in organising the management of T3 at all material times and they had employed cleaners for daily cleaning of T3. Before August 2017, D14 was not required to pay any cleaning fee but thereafter D14 has contributed 1/10 of the cleaning fees of T3. The receipts issued by one Madam Lee to D14 evidenced such contributions by D14. 59.Mr Li confirmed that Madam Lee had told him that she required D14 to pay contribution to the cleaning fee of Madam Ying. I have studied the receipts issued by Madam Ying. They bore the company chop of a company not being D10 and D11 though they were described as the owners of 3B and 3C. 60.Madam Ying was not called to testify. There is nothing to show that she was engaged by the 3/F Owners to clean and maintain T3 not in her personal capacity but as the employee of D2. 61.Despite their averments in the Joint Defence, Mr Li and D13 in their witness statements point out that D2 were on some occasions involved in the management of T3 such as sending out notices relating to the renovation and repair works carried out at T3 in 2016. They also rely on the fact that D2 actively procured the legal representation for the 3/F Owners in these proceedings and contend that D2 must be responsible for the management and maintenance of T3. However, they did not testify. 62.I hold that all the relevant Ds were bound by their pleaded case in the Joint Defence, which is also supported by the evidence of D14 too. The 3/F Owners and not D1 or D2 have the duty to manage and maintain T3. Causes of the water seepage 63.I am fully cognizant of the fact that factual evidence is of equal importance and relevance as with expert evidence. That said, I decided to study the expert evidence first. If by the tests done on T2 and T3 it is shown that they are waterproof and no water can leak out therefrom, it will go a long way to negative P’s case. Expert evidence 64.By the Order of Mr Registrar Ho dated 2 October 2018, the parties were granted leave to adduce expert evidence on liability and quantum issues limited to one water leakage expert. D4 and D5 were separately given to nominate their respective water leakage expert. It was further ordered that all the experts shall on or before 27 November 2018 conduct a joint inspection of the Building and conduct such tests as may be agreed among them and immediately thereupon hold a without prejudice meeting for the purpose of preparing a joint expert report. 65.Pursuant to the said Order, by a joint instruction letter dated 26 November 2018 (“the Joint Instruction Letter”), P instructed Mr Stewart Wong, D1, D2, D3, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13 and D15 instructed Mr Patrick Lau. D14 instructed Mr Victor Ho as mentioned before. 66.In the Joint Instruction Letter, it was indicated that the experts would be given access to 2I, 3J and Ts for inspection and examination. The following questions were expressly posed for the experts:
67.Each of Mr Stewart Wong, Mr Lau and Mr Ho prepared his separate expert report. In addition, they prepared a joint export report (“the Joint Report”) in the form of the table setting out all their agreements and disagreements. The Joint Report dated 17 December 2019 was signed by all three of them. 68.According to the Joint Report, Mr Stewart Wong administered some tests to find out the sources of water seepage into 2I, namely, dye colour water tests (“dye water test”), moisture contents test and chloride content test. Mr Lau, in addition, performed his own chloride contents tests, conductivity tests, infra-red scanning and microwave scanning to verify the results of the foregoing tests. All the three experts inspected 2I, T2, T3, 3J and the external wall. 69.Mr Stewart Wong conducted a chloride content test on 14 May 2019. He spaded off from the lower part of the Wall inside 2I some plaster as sample and one sample from the lower part of the wall inside 3J shared by the adjacent T3. Mr Stewart Wong took them to a laboratory for a chloride content test. The laboratory test report shows that the chloride content by mass of the sample is 0.56%. More likely than not, the chloride content was caused to exist due to the previous presence of salty flush water. Mr Stewart Wong maintains that this test result shows that salty flush water from T2 and T3 seeped into 2I through the Wall and 3J. 70.Mr Lau himself chiseled some paint and plaster from the bottom level of the Wall inside 2I for ammonia and chloride content test. The test result confirmed ammonia and chloride content of the sample. 71.On the same day, Mr Stewart Wong performed a dye water test on the wash hand basin, water closet and the floors of T2 and T3. For T2, Mr Stewart Wong first took record of the moisture contents on the Wall inside 2I and UV light torching the floor and the Wall. He used florescent greenish dye water to pond the entire floor of T2 for about 2.5 hours. Afterwards, he took UV light torching the floor and the Wall inside 2I. 72.It was found that florescent greenish dye water was found to have seeped through the base of the Wall and entered 2I. As a result, the floor of 2I and the lower part of the Wall were stained. 73.Mr Stewart Wong also observed that the damp proof membrane in the floor slab and the lower part of the Wall of T2 were dilapidated and worn out. He concluded that water including salty flush water in T2 had seeped through the floor and the lower part of the Wall to 2I. 74.Mr Lau recorded the findings of the dye water test done by Mr Stewart Wong. He too observed that there was an additional sign of fluorescence dye colour on the floor adjourning the external wall inside 2I. Basically, Mr Lau agreed with the findings of Mr Stewart Wong in relation to the condition of 2I after the day colour test. 75.Mr Ho agreed that there were signs of fluorescence dye colour inside 2I near the external wall. 76.With regard to T3, Mr Stewart Wong administered a similar dye water test on the floor. This time he used florescent reddish dye water to pond the entire floor of T3 for 2 hours. 77.Mr Stewart Wong observed that during the dye water test, florescent lighted water was found appearing on the seam between the floor of 3J and the lower part of the wall of T3. Under UV light torching, florescent light sports appeared on the ceiling of T2 showing there was water seepage from T3 to T2. Dye water was also seen seeping through the external wall of T3 towards the external wall of T2 causing dampness. 78.Whilst Mr Lau agreed to the observations of Mr Stewart Wong, he observed that the dye colour was found to have leaked from T3 to the common staircase as well. 79.For the results of the moisture contents test/conductivity test in respect of T2, Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau were in agreement with each other generally. After the dye water test, there was a general increase in the moisture contents at the floor and the lower part of the Wall inside 2I. 80.The conductivity test carried out by Mr Lau also showed that there was an increase in dampness at the lower part of the Wall and the floor at isolated locations in 2I as evidenced by the readings of his protimeter. 81.After the dye water test in T3, the moisture contents test/conductivity test was done too. Mr Stewart Wong found that there was a general increase in the moisture contents at the ceiling and upper part of the Wall of 2I adjacent to the underside of T3 and below 3J. Mr Lau and Mr Ho agreed with Mr Wong’s findings of the moisture contents in regard to 2I. Furthermore, there was a general increase the moisture contents at the lower part of the party wall and on the floor of 3J after the dye water test. 82.The conductivity test carried out by Mr Lau gave similar results. They indicated that there was a significant increase in dampness on the high level of the Wall near the window behind the external wall inside 2I. 83.In addition to the moisture contents test/conductivity test, Mr Lau conducted infra-red scanning. He explained that those areas with lower temperature were suspected in wet condition because of the higher heat capacity of water. 84.Before the dye water test in T2, there were spots of dampness on the Wall at and below the windows facing the street. After the test, there was a sign of significant increase in dampness of the floor hole in 2I (“the Floor Hole”) whereas there was no sign of change in dampness of the Wall and the floor. 85.After the dye water test in T3, Mr Lau detected that there was a sign of increase in dampness on the ceiling corner near the external wall inside 2I. However, Mr Lau found that there was no sign of change in dampness of the floor slab inside 3J. 86.Lastly, Mr Lau carried out microwave scanning before and after the dye water tests in Ts. Before the tests, it was already found that there were locations of water seepage on the Wall at low level inside the manager room of 2I. 87.After the dye water test in T2, microwave scanning showed that there was a sign of increase in dampness on the Wall at low level both in the manager room and the general office area of 2I. 88.After the dye water test in T3, it was revealed by microwave scanning that there was a sign of increase in dampness on the ceiling of all the manager room and the general area inside 2I. 89.In relation to the foregoing findings, Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau are generally in agreement. Mr Ho indeed raises only a few minor and insignificant disagreements and on the whole he agrees with those findings. 90.The respective conclusions reached by the experts individually are recorded in the Joint Report. It would be sufficient to mention the following on this issue. 91.Mr Stewart Wong concluded that the sources or origins of the water seepage into 2I are T2, T3 and the external wall. 92.Based on the site observation and the test results in 2I, T2, T3 and 3J, Mr Lau found that water seepage problem had been in existence in the manager room inside 2I of the Wall and ceiling adjoining T2 at low level and high level. 93.By reason of (1) apparent dampness/leakage and dye colour found on the pipeline of the drainage pipe and wash hand basin of T2 and T3 after the dye water test and (2) presence of chloride and ammonia content of the plaster samples collected at the low level of the Wall inside 2I, Mr Lau opined that the water seepage in 2I is due to the defects of the drainage of T2 and T3. 94.Moreover, due to the additional sign of florescent dye colour found in the holes on the floor and on the ceiling corner adjourning the external wall side of 2I, Mr Lau concluded that there was water seepage through the floor slab due to the failure of the waterproofing layer of T2 and T3. 95.Mr Lau maintained that his findings were supported by the results of the conductivity checking, infrared scanning and microwave scanning. 96.Lastly, based on his observation that there were cracks, stain marks and peel off paint found on the internal side of the external wall of 2I and the apparent defects of the window frames of 2I, Mr Lau concluded that, subject to water spray test on the external wall, water seepage through the external walls outside 2I, 3J, T2 and T3 is highly likely. Mr Ho agrees with him in this regard. 97.Mr Stewart Wong agrees with Mr Lau’s conclusions in the main. Whilst agreeing that the external wall is one of the sources of water seepage into 2I, Mr Stewart Wong was not convinced that a water spray test on the external wall is viable and desirable. He opined that the 2 examination days were already packed with tests and that a water spray test may tamper the condition of 2I. Lastly, Mr Stewart Wong said that a water spray test may cause further damage to 2I and possibly the Church on the 1st floor. 98.Additionally, Mr Stewart Wong contends that the flush water supply pipes and fittings of T2 and T3 also causes leakage of water based on the chloride contents and ammonia tests. 99.Mr Lau does not agree to this contention. There was no apparent dampness found on the exposed pipeline and no water ponding was found in 2I and in the vicinity of reported water seepage locations. Mr Ho supports Mr Lau’s disagreement. 100.Mr Ho’s focus is on the external wall. His conclusion is that based on the dye water test to Ts, signs of water leakage were found on the external wall outside both Ts. Water could seep through the weak points within the external wall from inside and vice versa. He highlighted that there is no evidence indicating any direct or indirect potential water leakage from T3 to 2I. 101.Mr Ho suggested that if the floors of Ts can be kept from accumulation of water, the possibility of water seeping from the floors of the two toilets to the external wall is minimal. 102.Mr Ho pointed out that with the possible leakage at one point in the ceiling of T2, it would unlikely have any causal effect to 2I, especially if there is no accumulation of water on the floors of Ts. 103.Before doing my analysis of their findings and conclusion, it is worthwhile to remind myself of the relevant principles relating to expert evidence, on which the defence side has made lengthy submissions. 104.First, in Sun Cheong Construction Co Ltd v The Incorporated Owners of King Fu, Ho Fu, Ki Fu and Ka Fu Buildings (unreported, HCCT 27/2010, 22.8.2019), Mimmie Chan J said this about expert evidence at §45,
105.For the nature of a joint expert report, my attention is drawn to Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol.1, §38/39/6,
106.The lack of binding effect of such joint expert statement/report is shown by authorities: Wide Fortune (HK) Limited v Chan Kwok Chung (unreported, DCCJ 2578/2018, 6.8.2020), Robin Ellis Ltd v Malwright [1999] 68 ConLR 122, Documentary Evidence in Hong Kong (2nd Ed), Hodgkinson & James on Expert Evidence: Law and Practice. 107.Unless the parties expressly agree to be bound, such joint expert statement/report is not binding on them. And a party is entitled to cross-examine an expert engaged by him: Phipson on Evidence (19th Ed), §33-32. 108.On this basis, this court allowed the defence side to cross-examine Mr Lau despite the objection of Mr Sham and the two experts were cross-examined at length by different counsel. 109.I should add that both Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau explained in court that water or liquid can flow inside the Wall and other concrete surfaces such as floor slabs and walls without external force by a process called capillary action. The flow sometimes could be even in opposition to gravity. They opined that moisture or water at the bottom of the Wall could go up to a limited extent (about 1 metre) by capillary action. 110.Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau also said under cross-examination that the damage found in 2I due to water seepage appeared to have been caused over a long period of time and not on an isolated occasion. 111.My attention was somehow drawn to some authorities in which Mr Stewart Wong’s evidence was heavily criticized and rejected. I will not have any preconception of his reliability, nevertheless. 112.More importantly, in the present case, there was no criticism or objection raised by Mr Lau and Mr Ho to the testing methods and procedure adopted by Mr Stewart Wong. Though I agree that, as pointed out by counsel in their written closing submissions there were certain inconsistencies in his answers and explanations under cross-examination, the results of his tests, unchallenged by the other two experts, speak for themselves. 113.His conclusions are actually agreed by Mr Lau. Mr Lau struck me to be a fair witness having ample experience in water seepage matters. He sounded scientific and testified in a confident manner. 114.The same could not be said about Mr Ho. He did not carry out any test himself and he did not make any comments on the proprietary of the tests carried out by Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau. He spoke the minimal about their conclusions and he made an effort to attribute the water seepage to the defects of the external wall albeit in the absence of any tests done on the external wall in his draft report. 115.Under cross-examination, Mr Ho changed his position and indicated his agreement with the analysis of Mr Lau notwithstanding his observations in the Joint Report. Mr Ho expressly agreed with the results of the dye water test done in T3 showing water seepage to 2I. He even mentioned that he should correct what he stated in his draft report. I do not understand why he had not stated his correct position before he attended the trial. 116.In my judgment, Mr Lau’s conclusion is reasonable and reliable and is based on the uncontradicted test results. I have little hesitation in accepting his evidence and analysis. 117.I should make it clear that I cannot conclude that the water seepage to 2I originates from T2, T3 and the external wall on the expert evidence alone. With more, I can only conclude that T2, T3 and the external wall can be a source of water seepage into 2I. I too have to consider the factual evidence and make the essential factual findings before I can resolve the disputes between the parties. 118.The defence side left no stone unturned in their effort to challenge the evidence of Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau. Mr Lai, counsel for D7 and D8, Mr Fan, counsel for D9 and D12 and Mr Cheung, counsel for D14 respectively cross-examined Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau extensively and attacked their reliability in their respective lengthy written closing submissions. 119.I do not find it necessary to deal with all the challenges manfully mounted. I shall deal with the major arguments. 120.The main line of argument of the defence counsel is that there is no evidence as to how Ts are used and hence no evidence that there is ever accumulation of water. Their case theory is that in cases of only small quantity of water splashing onto the floors of T2 or T3, the water would either evaporate or somehow absorbed in the concrete slab: Hui Ling Ling v Sky Field Development Limited (unreported, HCA35/2007, 8.5.2012) per Recorder Yuen SC at §65. Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau accepted this under cross-examination. If there is never any water accumulation on the floors of Ts, there should be no seepage to 2I. This sounds logical. 121.I accept that the experts have not been provided specific information about the use of Ts. I understand that they were provided the pleadings of all the parties but I do not think they shed any light on the question. 122.However, I do not find such information can in any way affect the specific tests done on the two days and the findings made thereof. Even if there is not a single drop of water in T2 or T3, it does not mean that the usual tests cannot be properly administered to find out the waterproofness of such premises and accurate findings cannot be obtained therefrom. 123.Another line of argument taken by the defence is that the experts failed to take any tests on the external wall, which they say is the main if not the sole source of water seepage. 124.I too agree that a test on the external wall would be helpful. The Joint Instruction Letter actually required the experts to check whether the external wall has been properly repaired. I find none of the reasons given by Mr Stewart Wong for not taking a spray test to be valid. The experts could take all the time they needed to take all the proper and necessary tests on the external wall. I fail to understand why neither Mr Lau nor Mr Ho insisted a spray test or any test at all to be done on the external wall. 125.Yet, the experts, in spite of the lack of any such test, agree that the external wall is one of the sources of water seepage based on their observations. I accept their unanimous conclusion. Indeed, to a layman, the extensive damage and water marks below the windows on the external wall highly suggest that there was water seepage from the external wall. 126.Mr Lai contends that neither Mr Stewart Wong nor Mr Lau could rule out the possibility that the building materials of 2I contain chloride and ammonia and so the chloride and ammonia contents found in the test samples did not come from the salty water originating from the drainage pipe in T2. 127.His submission is based on the allegation that the two control samples taken from the unaffected part of the Wall by Mr Lau were also found to contain chloride and ammonia. Mr Lai relies on a paragraph in the draft report of Mr Lau and the relevant tests of such control samples.[i] 128.In Mr Lau’s report, he merely stated that he had taken two reference samples, namely RA and RC. He did not say where these two samples were taken and whether these were control samples meaning they were taken from places where there was no sign of water leakage. Under cross-examination, he explained that he took these two samples on the Wall near the partition wall of the manager room. He merely said that he chose the location away from where he took the test sample. 129.The reference samples or the control samples should not be taken from the Wall in my view. They should be taken from an isolated location inside 2I say the wall opposite to the Wall and the experts should be asked to take a test on such samples. In the absence of a proper test of such samples, the contention of Mr Lai is speculative and cannot be accepted. 130.Mr Lai next submits that 3J can be accountable for the chloride and ammonia contents found in the Wall because it was well documented that a public drainage pipe in 3J had a leakage problem in August 2015. 131.Mr Lai refers this court to the minutes of an owners’ meeting dated 7 August 2015. In the document, it was mentioned that a public drainage pipe inside 3J had leakage but the owner of 3J refused to let the contractor enter 3J for inspection. 132.There is no other evidence about the alleged leakage. The severity of the alleged leakage is unknown. It is not known whether any salty water seeped into 2I through the ceiling and reached the lower part of the Wall. This is not the complaint of P. In any event, the alleged leakage had occurred more than 4 years before the tests. This alleged leakage should be brought to the attention of the experts in the Joint Instruction Letter and the experts should carry out proper investigation. The defence should ask their expert to conduct Chloride and ammonia tests on the samples of the floor slabs of 3J to make good this allegation. It is unfair to Mr Lau to raise this matter with him for the first time under cross-examination. 133.Mr Fan highlights to me that none of the experts reported their observation of any leakage of the pipes in T3 and/or any unpleasant odour in T3. Then the drainage pipe in T3 should be in good order. 134.I cannot agree with Mr Fan. Mr Lau did find apparent dampness and leakage on the pipeline of the drainage pipe of wash hand basin in T3.[ii] 135.A point is taken about the microwave scanning test. Mr Lai submits that the results show that lesser moisture contents were detected on the Wall near 2I and there were more moisture contents further away from 2I. 136.This is not my understanding of the test results. If anything, they show that there was obvious dampness found in the lower part of the Wall before and after the dye water test. I would also think that it cannot be assumed that the density and porousness are the same throughout the Wall. 137.Mr Lai refers this court to a publication of The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors entitled “Professional Guide to Water Seepage” (“the Guide”) and points out that water near the surface of the test object will heavily affect the readings. 138.Mr Lai then suggests that the slight increase of the moisture contents detected may be due to the dampness of the surface of the Wall. I can see no merit in this submission. In any event, I fail to see how this can explain away the dampness of the Wall due to the water seepage from T2. 139.Mr Lai casts doubt on the readings of the conductivity test conducted by Mr Lau. It is true that even lower readings in respect of some locations of the Wall were recorded after the dye water test. Mr Lau explained that the room temperature might be different after the 2-hour ponding and this explained that the reading might even drop after the test. Mr Lau accepts that there are minor errors in this kind of test and there are pitfalls of the tests as mentioned in the Guide. Overall speaking, the readings in respect of the Wall show that the upper part and the lower part of the Wall were rather wet before the test and there was a particular point (Point 4) having a markedly increased dampness. The accuracy of this reading was not challenged. I believe this reading could sufficiently support Mr Lau’s conclusion though Mr Lai managed to get Mr Lau to agree that he had not relied on this reading to support his overall conclusion. 140.Lastly, I accept that there are indeed limitations of the Joint Report. The experts failed to address the extent and duration of the water seepage into 2I and whether and to what extent 3J should be responsible for the water seepage into 2I. They were expressly asked to do so in the Joint Instruction Letter. 141.For the former issue, I can understand that the experts may not have sufficient factual information to make any findings. As noted above, I have only the opinion of both Mr Stewart Wong and Mr Lau that the damage caused to 2I shows that the water seepage persistently took place over a period of time rather than on an isolated occasion. 142.For the latter issue, Mr Wong in his draft report pointed out that it was impossible to perform any meaningful test or assessment in 3J due to severe obstructions found in the premises. The photos attached to his draft report show the obstructions. 143.I fail to understand why D15 was not demanded by the parties and in particular SKLAC, which acted for D15 at the material time, to clear up obstructions so that the experts could do the necessary tests in 3J pursuant to the Joint Instruction Letter. I understand that it is not in P’s claim that water seeps into 2I through 3J. Nevertheless, it is the main argument of the defence that 3J should be the source of water seepage into 2I. They should insist that their experts could be enabled to properly answer the question in the Joint Instruction Letter to make good their assertion. 144.To sum up, I find the challenges to the expert evidence in the Joint Report unmeritorious. In particular, the belated attack on the reliability of Mr Lau’s evidence is unhelpful. The Joint Report was filed almost one year before the trial and only D14 had indicated that cross-examination was needed at trial. The other Ds should have asked Mr Lau, whom they instructed, for his clarifications and if necessary a supplemental expert report well before the trial. 145.Having accepted the conclusions in the Joint Report, I find that all of T2, T3 and the external wall can be a source of water seepage to 2I. I do not agree with the defence that P is required to prove why and how water seeped into 2I from the two toilets. 146.I believe it is too onerous a burden to require a plaintiff to prove the actual activities taking place in a defendant’s premises in order to prove his water leakage claim. In the present case, the alleged sources of water seepage are the two toilets. If they were a library or a grain store, I would find the argument of the defence side to have force. 147.It is no rocket science that the floors of a communal toilet can sometimes be wet and there can even be water accumulations. This is everyday experience and common knowledge of an ordinary person. T2 was used by the cleaners of D2 for its water supply to clean the Building on a daily basis and the volume of water used in T2 is not hard to fathomed. If the defence contends that the floors of T2 and/or T3 were always in a dry condition and there was never water accumulations, they could call Madam Ying to be their defence witness to make good their contention. 148.In the absence of any such evidence, I am prepared to accept that P has proved, on balance of probabilities, that T2, T3 and the external wall are the sources and origins of the water seepage into 2I. 149.Even if Ts are the sources of water seepage into 2I, it does not follow that D2 should necessarily be liable as manager of T2, D1 is liable as the IO and the 2/F Owners and 3/F Owners are liable as owners of T2 or T3. I should study the factual evidence and go into the history of the matter to resolve the issue of liabilities of different Ds. Before doing so, the following legal principles are pertinent. 150.First, on the nature of the duty of a property manager of a building, in Lo Yuk Chu v Hang Yick Properties [1996] 4 HKC 278, Power Ag CJ said this,
151.This was cited with approval by Cheung JA in Lee Ming Yueh v Broadway-Nassau Investments Ltd [2015] 5 HKLRD 208 at para. 23. Cheung JA further cited the following dictum of Roger VP in Lau Chun Wing Rod v Incorporated Owner of Po On Building (unreported, CACV20/2007, 1.11.2007) at paras.12-13:
152.Thus, it is clear that the duty of an IO and a manager in the management of a building under the Building Management Ordinance, Cap.344 (‘the BMO”) is not absolute. The key question is whether they have taken the proper and necessary steps without undue delay to rectify the water leakage problem once they had knowledge of the same. 153.Though D1 and D2 are not sued on any breach of their duty under the BMO, I believe that the same legal principles apply to them. Mr Sham fairly accepts that their duties are not absolute. In P’s pleaded case, D1 and D2 were allegedly in breach of their duties to manage the Building with reasonable care and skill only. Factual evidence 154.At all the material times, Madam Ng occupied 2I and operated the business of Fullhold in the manager room. She had the first-hand knowledge of the condition of 2I and personal experience in following up the water seepage problem and dealing with Madam Chen and D2. 155.Madam Ng testified for P. She appeared to be forthcoming and straightforward. Her testimony is clear and firm and mostly supported by contemporaneous correspondence. I find her to be a credible and reliable witness and I am inclined to accept her evidence. 156.An account of the relevant events evidenced by documentary evidence is as follows. Madam Ng first sent an email dated 7 August 2015 to Madam Chen complaining about the water leakage problem in 2I. She concentrated on the ceiling and the external wall. Attached to her email were some photos showing the damage. 157.Two matters happened around that time. First, D1 and Yan Cheong Construction Engineering Ltd (“YC”) entered into a written agreement dated 28 April 2015 by which YC agreed to undertake the renovation work of the Building (“the Renovation”). YC sent out a questionnaire dated 12 August 2015 to each of the owners of the units in the Building and asked them to give information about any leakage problem. 158.Another matter is that there was a serious flood in 3J in August 2015. Madam Ng said that the flood lasted for 2 days and water seeped into 2I through the wall(s) and ceiling. She went up to the 3rd floor and found the corridor was flooded too. 159.She then complained to the management office. She recalled that the management office sent a repair worker to inspect 2I. 160.On the other hand, Madam Ng sent an email dated 13 August 2015 to Madam Chen enclosing some photos. She reminded P that water leakage problem caused by the external wall and the Wall should be taken care of in the imminent Renovation. 161.On the next day, Madam Chen forwarded the photos to Madam Chung of D2. Madam Chen asked Madam Chung to arrange workers to inspect 2I. Madam Chung is the director of D2 and supervised the management of the Building. 162.On 12 October 2015, Madam Ng sent a follow-up email to Madam Chen saying she had not received any reply from P. She further mentioned the new tenancy, the-peeing off of concretes from the ceiling, water seepage from T2 wetting the Wall and falling plasters from the ceiling. 163.On 19 October 2015, Madam Chen replied to Madam Ng by email. She said that she had made enquiries with the management company and was told that they had already begun the renovation work on the external wall. She also demanded the management office to send a worker to inspect 2I. For the ceiling seepage problem, P suspected that 3I was the cause and P had already asked D2 to talk to the owner of 3I. 164.Three minutes later, Madam Ng replied to Madam Chen by email and told her that a worker had inspected 2I in the previous week already. She was told that such remedial works were not with the ambit of the Renovation and so they needed a fresh quotation for such works. 165.On 1 February 2016, Madam Ng emailed Madam Chen enclosing two photographs. She complained about falling plaster from the ceiling covering her desk. She asked the main contractor to follow up. 166.On 25 February 2016, Madam Ng sent a chaser email to Madam Chen complaining about the lack of follow-up action. Up till then, water still seeped through the windows side and the plasters kept falling off from the ceiling. 167.On 18 March 2016, Madam Ng sent an email to Madam Chen and asked to be advised as to when 2I would be “patched up”. She also complained about bad smell in 2I. 168.In her witness statement, Madam Chung said on the same day she received an email from Madam Ng asking for confirmation as to when repair works could be completed. Madam Chung told her that both D2 and YC opined that the defective renovation works in 2I was the cause of the water seepage problem but P indicated that water seepage not only originated from the external wall but also Ts. 169.On 29 March 2016, YC commenced the waterproofing works of the floor of T2 and completed the same in early May 2016. In the minutes of a meeting of D1 dated 28 April 2016, it was recorded that the waterproofing works of T2 had been completed. There was no mention about 2I being affected by the seepage from T2. 170.As a result of negotiation, YC agreed not to charge for such works albeit not included in the Renovation. It transpired that the Church was required to pay HK$10,000 for those works. Apparently water had seeped into its function room from T2. 171.In April 2016, D2 started notifying the 3/F Owners about the need to carry out certain renovation works in the two toilets on the 3rd floor. Quotations have been obtained from contractors including YC. Eventually, Fully Contracting Co (“FCC”) was engaged to carry out the renovation works of the male toilet and T3 on the 3rd floor. Such works was commenced in September 2016 and completed in early 2017. 172.Allegedly on 10 May 2016 YC sent someone to inspect 2I and found no dampness on the ceiling and the wallpaper. 173.On 16 November 2016, Madam Ng sent an email (“the 16/11 email”) to Madam Chen asking whether and when P would do anything to patch up 2I after leakage. She complained that 2I was like hell. 174.Madam Chen said she had followed this up with Madam Chung and Madam Chung told her that she would discuss with D1 and YC. 175.By an email dated 27 April 2017, Madam Ng informed that Fullhold would prematurely terminate the tenancy on 31 August 2017. Before that, Madam Ng told Madam Chen she could not tolerate the water seepage problem of 2I and she had breathing problem due to the bad smell inside 2I. 176.After Fullhold vacated 2I, P sent Mr Kwan, a contractor, to 2I to inspect the damage. Photos were taken. 177.On 6 September 2017, Mr Cho of YC received notification from D2 of the complaint about the persistent water seepage problem. On the following day he together with Madam Chung went to 2I for inspection. He observed that water seepage was particularly serious near the window side and he suspected it was due to the defective unauthorised installation of windows by P. 178.By an email dated 28 September 2017, P complained to Madam Chung again about the water leakage problem and sent to her some photographs for their record. 179.On 6 October 2017, IK on behalf of P sent a letter to D1 and D2 (“the 1st IK Letter”) making specific complaints about water seepage through the Wall from T2 and the ceiling. Legal action was threatened if they failed to deal with the problem within seven days. 180.On 24 October 2017, a meeting of the management committee of the Building was held. In the minutes of the meeting, it was recorded that 2I had written to complain about the water seepage from the external wall and asked for compensation. This, however, was not really the complaint of 2I in the 1st IK Letter. 181.In the said minutes, it was also recorded that the majority of feedback from the owners of the units in the Building concerned the water seepage from the external wall after the Renovation. YC was informed to take follow-up action. 182.On 9 November 2017, IK sent another letter to D1 and D2 stating that they had received no reply whatsoever to the 1st IK Letter. Enclosed with the said letter were some photos of 2I. In the photos, it can be seen that 2I was cleared up and extensive damage was caused by water seepage problem. IK pointed out that the water leakage problems were caused by T2 and the external wall and demanded a realistic timetable and method statement on repair of T2 and the external wall. Legal action was again threatened in the event of non-compliance with the demand. 183.On 11 November 2017, a management committee meeting was held. According to the minutes of the said meeting, it was recorded that IK had demanded compensation based on the allegation that the external wall and T2 caused water seepage problem and 2I was damaged. It was reported that YC had confirmed that there was no proof of any common parts being the cause and in the course of the Renovation, request had been made to the occupying tenant of 2I to demolish certain decorative structures for inspection but was rejected. Therefore, discussion should be deferred after P’s proof of common parts being the cause. 184.On 21 November 2017, D2 sent a letter to IK and reported the discussion in the said management committee meeting. It was alleged that in early 2016, YC approached the tenants for inspection but was told that it was not convenient to dismantle the decorative structure and remove the cabinets. As a result, YC was unable to carry out inspection. 185.D2 further asked whether there was still leakage problem and they would inform YC to follow up the matters. YC would find out whether it was a leakage problem or just fair wear or tear. 186.IK replied by way of a letter dated 23 November 2017. All the allegations of D2 were rebutted. IK welcomed YC to inspect 2I and urged it to fix an inspection time. 187.On 8 December 2017, Mr Kwan and Mr Cho inspected 2I. Mr Kwan observed that water could seep through the wall skirt and the floor of T2 whereas Mr Cho pointed out that the walls and the floor of T2 were dry and so no water seepage was possible. 188.On 2 January 2018, at the invitation of IK, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“the FEHD”) sent its staff to inspect 2I. The FEHD sent P a letter dated 5 January 2018 stating their observation that the watermarks on the ceiling and the Wall were dry and there was no sign of seepage for the time being. The FEHD would not carry out further investigation in accordance with their established procedure. 189.IK instructed Mr Stewart Wong to inspect T2 and 2I and found out that there was still water seepage from T2 to 2I. It was observed that the floor and the walls of T2 had no waterproof material. Mr Stewart Wong prepared a surveyor report dated 1 March 2018 (“the Report”). 190.By a letter dated 1 March 2018 enclosing the Report to D1 and D2 (“the Last IK Letter”), IK highlighted that in the Report, Mr Stewart Wong found out that T2 and T3 were, and still are, the origin and sources of water seepage into 2I. IK demanded prompt rectification of the problem. 191.In the minutes of a management committee meeting held on 12 March 2018, it was recorded that the Last IK Letter including the Report had been passed to the chairman of D1 and records of D2 and YC would be collected for their lawyers to make a reply. 192.P received no reply before the Writ herein was issued on 28 March 2018. 193.I have heard the live evidence of Madam Ng, Madam Chen, Madam Kwan, Madam Chung, Mr Cho and Mr Kwan, who were involved in the foregoing narrative. 194.I first resolve the factual dispute as to whether Madam Ng had refused to remove decorative wooden panel so that the staff of YC could inspect 2I to check the water seepage problem. 195.I believe Madam Ng that she was never asked to do so. The evidence of D2 on this issue is dubious. 196.The evidence of Mr Cho is that the request was made by the foreman of YC called Mr Cheng during a visit not long after 1 September 2015. Thus, Mr Cho apparently relies on the words of Mr Cheng only. 197.Then there are two controversial letters purportedly issued by D2 dated 8 September 2015 and 25 November 2015 (“the Two Letters”). In the former letter, D2 requested Madam Chen to remove the built-in cabinet so that Mr Cho could make the inspection into the water seepage problem. In the latter letter, D2 repeated the same request. Neither letters mentioned the alleged refusal of Madam Ng during the visit in early September 2015. 198.Madam Ng did not receive these two letters in the mailbox. P had no notice of these letters. I believe their evidence in this regard. 199.There is no reason why D2 did not follow up the matter in the absence of any response from P. More remarkably, when pressed for remedial works by P, D2 said nothing about its request ignored by P. D2 should tell P that it could not do anything further unless the request was complied with. 200.It was not until November 2017 that D2 by its letter mentioned for the first time that in early 2016, its contractor was unable to carry out inspection due to the tenant’s refusal to “dismantle the decoration and remove the cabinets”. 201.Inexplicably, in the said letter, the alleged refusal was made in early 2016 and not September 2015. D2 could not have made a mistake about the date given the Two Letters, if existed at that time. 202.Mr Sham has made a cogent submission on the authenticity of the Two Letters. He told this court that the Two Letters were only disclosed by D2 after P took out an application for specific discovery. I can see the force in his submissions. 203.Madam Chung explained under cross-examination that she did not know the importance of the Two Letters. This is not believable. She relies on the alleged refusal of Madam Ng to deflect the blame. The Two Letters best suit her purpose. 204.It can be seen that Madam Ng made the complaint about T2 in August 2015 to Madam Chen. I believe Madam Chen had related the complaint to Madam Chung. 205.In any event, in the witness statement of Madam Chung, she accepted that she had received the email of Madam Ng of 18 March 2016 and Madam Ng told her that T2 and T3 were the sources of the water seepage problem in addition to the external wall. Whether P or Madam Ng returned the questionnaire of YC is irrelevant. D1 and D2 were well-informed of P’s complaint. 206.What D1 and D2 did to rectify the seepage problem was to engage YC to carry out the waterproof works at T2 in late March 2016, which was reportedly completed by early May 2016. 207.After the completion of the works, Mr Cho said that on 17 May 2016 and 20 May 2016, YC did a dye water test at T2. YC found no dye at the function room but when Mr Cheng pressed the door bell of 2I, he was denied entry because of inconvenience. 208.I do not believe his account. There is no reason why any one of Fullhold would refuse Mr Cheng to check the result of the dye water test given the test was to solve their long term water seepage problem. And there is no reason why D2 did not put this refusal on record and took follow up actions. 209.Madam Ng’s evidence was placed under the microscope by defence counsel. I cannot accept their criticisms. Madam Ng was just a tenant suffering from water seepage problem. She is not a lawyer and one cannot read too much into her photos and her choice of words in her emails. The fact that she did not mention T2 or take photo of the Wall for a while does not mean that T2 ceased to be a source. Her request for patch up work after leakage in her 16/11 email cannot be taken that she already accepted that there was no more water leakage when her clear evidence is that the seepage persisted throughout. 210.Having accepted the expert evidence as analysed above, I am of the view that T2 has remained a source of water seepage into 2I despite the works carried out by YC in May 2016. T3 has remained so as well despite the works carried out by FCC in September 2016. I refuse to accept the submissions of defence counsel that T2 ceased to be the one of the sources from 2017. Even if Mr Cheng, Mr Cho and/or the FEHD officer felt no dampness with a particular part of the Wall, it does not mean that there is no more seepage. Whilst the test findings of the experts were under serious challenge, there is no reason why their causal observations should be taken as definitive conclusion. 211.The chronology of P refers to a notice dated 14 September 2020 and issued by Legend Intelligent Property Management Limited which is the current manager of the Building. There were 4 photographs in the notice showing the poor conditions of the ceiling and supporting beams of T2. By the notice, the owners of the units in the Building were informed that the seepage problem of T2 and T3 was serious and as a result, it was resolved that T2 would be closed. 212.D1 and D2 cannot rely on the works carried out by YC to discharge their duties. Of course, they cannot be blamed merely because the works failed to fully rectify the seepage problem. They should be entitled to rely reasonably on YC being a qualified contractor. However, when they received the 1st IK Letter, they should know that the problem had not yet been resolved. They should make an effort to take proper and necessary steps to remedy the situation within a reasonable time. They have plainly failed to do so and instead they look for excuses such as the alleged obstruction caused by Madam Ng, which I refuse to accept. 213.In the premises, I am satisfied that P has proved its claim against D1 and D2 on balance of probabilities. P’s claim against all other Ds based on the breaches of the DMC and the Sub-DMC is also borne out by evidence. 214.I proceed to determine the issue of damages recoverable by P and the issue of apportionment. 215.P claims two types of damages in the Statement of Claim. First, it claims repair costs of the interior of 2I and the estimated amount is HK$39,500 and costs of the Report in the sum of HK$10,000. I believe the latter should be recoverable as costs rather than damages. 216.Water seepage from T2 and T3 has caused visible damage to 2I. The amount claimed is not far from Mr Lau’s estimate. I have heard no submission that the amount claimed is unreasonable. In view of the fact that quotation was made in January 2018, taking into account inflation over the years, I allow HK$43,000 to be recoverable from Ds as repair costs. 217.P further claims loss of rental income. Firstly, for the reminder of the tenancy with Fullhold, i.e. from 1 September 2017 to 31 March 2018, P claims HK$11,000 per month. Thereafter, P claims HK$11,000 per month until the completion of all the repair and remedial works of Ts. 218.Mr Wong is right in pointing out that actually Fullhold paid HK$8,800 per month for the last tenancy. On the other hand, Mr Sham draws to my attention that the parties have agreed not to adduce evidence on the rental value of 2I. 219.The real problem is not about the amount. It lies with causation. Fullhold terminated the tenancy prematurely because 2I was untenantable. It cannot be argued that it was not and the photographs of 2I showing its present condition speak volume. I find, as a matter of fact, it was untenantable. In the absence of any repair works, 2I remains to be untenantable. 220.Madam Ng accepts that the flood of 3J in August 2015 caused severe damage to 2I. She could actually see water dripping from the ceiling for two days. P may have a claim against 3J in respect of the flood but its pleaded claim does not include the flood. 221.Moreover, the external wall is now agreed to be one of the sources of water seepage. Madam Ng’s complaints were, more often than not, directed at the window side and the ceiling. Damage to the inner side of the external wall inside 2I can be easily discerned. 222.There is no evidence where the bad smell comes from and what causes the bad smell. It may be emanated from an affected area caused by the 3J flood. 223.Thus, the untenantable state of 2I is attributable to some factors other than Ts. It is not really a matter of apportionment. The damage caused by the 3J flood and/or the external wall alone may be sufficient to make 2I unusable. 224.In other words, P has failed to prove that but for the damage caused by the water seepage from T2 and/or T3, 2I would have been tentantable throughout and continues to yield rental income. 225.I then come to the conclusion that I should not allow any damages under this head. 226.On the apportionment issue, I have received very limited assistance. Mr Stewart Wong suggests this ratio: T2: 50%, T3: 40% and the external wall: 10%. This is based on his assessment of the extent of damage caused by the respective source. 227.Most of the Ds not represented by counsel agree to Mr Stewart Wong’s suggested apportionment. 228.Mr Lau maintains that he did not have sufficient information and hence no comment is made on the apportionment of damages. Mr Ho says nothing on this issue at all. 229.I agree with Mr Lau that there is insufficient evidence to carry out a meaningful exercise of apportionment. I do not know the extent of damage caused by each of T2 and T3. The external wall is not included in the claim of P and there is no evidence to support a finding of the extent of damage caused by the seepage through the external wall. To apportion 10% to the external wall appears to be arbitrary. 230.Doing the best I can, in all fairness, the damages awarded to P should be equally apportioned between T2 and T3. 231.Lastly, in the pleaded case, P accepts that by reason of its ownership of 4 undivided shares out of the total of 14 undivided shares allocated to the 2nd floor of the Building and all the premises thereon, P is willing to pay or contribute 4/14 of the repair costs of T2 and to stop further seepage from T2. Conclusion 232.For the reasons given, I conclude that P’s claims against all the Ds are made out on the evidence. I order that judgment be entered against all the Ds. 233.I am of the view that the injunctions sought in the prayer of relief are appropriate except that D2 no longer has the locus to act. I make an order that D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8 do forthwith carry out such repair and/or remedial works to stop and/or to prevent further water seepage from T2 to 2I with the contribution of P to 2/7 of the ultimate costs of such repair and remedial works and the concomitant costs. 234.I further make an order that D1, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 and D15 do forthwith carry out such repair and/or remedial works to stop and/or to prevent further water seepage from T3 to 2I. 235.P should recover from all the Ds a total amount of HK43,000 as damages. I order that D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8 should pay P HK$21,500 in equal shares and D1, D9, D10, D11, D12, D13, D14 and D15 should pay P HK$21,500 in equal shares. 236.In view of the nature of the damages awarded, I do not allow any pre-judgment interest thereon. 237.Costs should normally follow the event. Yet, in the present case, I can see that there can be complications. Some Ds are unwilling and aggrieved. They could protect their costs position by appropriate means. Instead of making a costs order nisi, I invite the parties to make written submissions on costs of this action (including P’s summons dated 9 October 2020, which was dismissed at trial) and I intend to dispose of the costs issue on paper. I may give further directions upon receipt of the parties’ written submissions. 238.I direct the parties to lodge with this court their respective written submissions (in either English or Chinese) within 49 days from the date of this Judgment, taking into account the summer vacation and the fact that some of the Ds are not represented. Each set of written submissions should not exceed 4 pages (A4 size) and should be printed in not less than 14 font size and 1.5 line spacing. Non-compliant submissions will be returned unread and no costs will be allowed for the preparation of the same. 239.T2 and T3 are not the only sources of water seepage into 2I though being the only targets in P’s claims. P has won this hard-fought battle against Ds. However, the victory cannot help P eradicate the water seepage problem once and for all. There are clearly water seepage issues in the Building. Such issues must be taxing to all the parties concerned and are best resolved by competent construction works. Litigations simply do not assist. Parties should take a realistic and practical approach in these matter. 240.At the time of handing down this Judgment, those Ds acting in person will be informed in punti that should they wish to have this Judgment orally interpreted to them, they can contact this court within 3 days and arrangement will be made for them. 241.Last but not least, I thank all the legal representatives of the parties, especially Mr Sham, Ms Chun, Mr Wong, Ms Li, Mr Lai, Mr Fan and Mr Cheung, for their assistance and I am sure that all of them have put an enormous amount of effort into this trial. I should also thank all those unrepresented Ds for acting reasonably at trial.
Mr. Walker Sham and Ms. Nicole Chun, instructed by Ip, Kwan & Co., for the plaintiff Mr. Thomas Leung of Tony Kan & Co., for the 1st defendant (14 to 16, 19 to 21 October 2020) and the 1st defendant was not represented and did not appear on 21 and 30 December 2020 Mr. Damian Wong and Ms. Winnie Li, instructed by Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners, for the 2nd defendant Mr. Chan Yee L. of C.T. Chan & Co. for the 5th defendant Mr. Lai Chun Ho, instructed by Oldham, Li & Nie, for the 7th and 8th defendants Mr. Brian Fan, instructed by T C Wong & Co, for the 9th and 12th defendants Mr. Tommy Cheung, instructed by Lo & Lo, for the 14th defendant The 4th, 10th, 11th, 13th and 15th defendants appeared in person (Remarks: the 15th defendant was absent in the afternoon on 14 October 2020, in the morning of 15, 16 and 19 October 2020, and for the whole day on 20, 21 October, 21 and 30 December 2020) The 3rd and 6th defendants were not represented and did not appear | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 1306/2018