Tam Shing on By His Next Friend Ho Chui Lin v. Wong Chow Wah and Another
|
DCCJ 6961/2019 [2026] HKDC 1323 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO 6961 OF 2019 ---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
------------------------ JUDGMENT ------------------------ A. INTRODUCTION 1.The Plaintiff (“PL”) is the registered owner of the 3rd floor of Man On Building (“PL’s Premises") at No 83 Tai Po Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong. The Defendants (“Ds”) are the registered owners of the property on the 4th floor of the same building right above PL’s Premises (“Ds’ Premises”). 2.This is a dispute arising from the intermittent water leakage from Ds’ Premises down to PL’s Premises during the period from early 2016 to May 2023. 3.In this action, PL claims against Ds for (a) an injunctive relief mandating them to carry out all necessary repair works to stop the water leakage and (b) damages for the loss suffered resulting from the water leakage. B. BACKGROUND 4.Madam Ho Chui Lin (何翠蓮) (“Madam Ho”), who is acting as PL’s next friend in this action, is PL’s wife. Since around March 2016 – when the water leakage inside PL’s Premises started – PL and Madam Ho, together with their two sons, were living together at PL’s Premises. 5.PL’s Premises was originally jointly owned by PL and his mother since 1980. After his mother passed, it was solely owned by PL. This action was therefore commenced by PL in 2019. 6.In around February 2020, PL had an accident and sustained injury to his head; he then moved into an elderly home. Thereafter, Madam Ho and her younger son continued to live in PL’s Premises. 7.In March 2024, Madam Ho continued this action as PL’s next friend. 8.According to the floor plan disclosed by the parties, both PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises were originally designed as a single-family home with four bedrooms (marked thereon as Bedroom 1 to 4), two bathrooms (marked thereon as Bathroom 1 and 2), a combined living & dining room and a kitchen. It is to be noted that there is also a lightwell (“the Lightwell”) between Man On Building and the adjacent building at No 81 Tai Po Road. This is relevant because one of the issues between the parties is whether the water damage inside PL’s Premises was caused by rainwater leaking through the wall of the Lightwell. 9.Regarding Ds’ Premises, shortly after Ds had acquired it on 1 April 2004, it was converted into five sub-divided units (referred to in this action as Unit 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) with individual bathrooms inside. Therefore, since 2004, there have been five, instead of two, bathrooms inside Ds’ Premises; furthermore, they were built at different locations from the original two bathrooms shown in the original building plan. 10.Because of the said conversion works inside Ds’ Premises, further water supply and drainage works must have been added by Ds to serve the additional and relocated bathrooms. From the photographs presented, these additional drainage systems were embedded in the raised floor of the bathrooms. 11.The said internal alteration works have not been approved by the Building Authority. 12.Below are the respective floor plans of PL’s Premises (showing the original layout with two bathrooms and four bedrooms – Bedrooms 1 to 4) and Ds’ Premises (after alteration, showing five separate units – Units 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 with ensuite bathrooms): C. THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CASE 13.PL’s pleaded case can be briefly summarized as follows:
14.Ds do not dispute that there was water damage in PL’s Premises; their pleaded defence is that:
15.It is to be noted that Ds repeatedly pleaded that the leaking drainage pipe in the floor of the bathroom of Unit 1 (found by the Joint Office under dye water test in June 2016[1]) had been repaired in November 2016. In that regard, Ds personally signed a Statement of Truth on 10 December 2020 and 14 December 2020 respectively, confirming that they believed the facts stated in their Defence were true. 16.However, at trial, it has become clear that no repair was in fact carried out to the leaking drainage pipe in question, and the 2nd Defendant was aware of it all along.[2] 17.When the Defence was amended on 17 June 2024, Ds maintained the same false assertion and instructed their solicitors to sign another Statement of Truth, knowing that such allegation was false. D. ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES 18.On 20 May 2025, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Issues in Dispute listing out the following issues:
19.At trial, PL was represented by Mr Ng Man Kin of (“Mr Ng”) of Messrs Kwok, Ng & Chan. Ds were represented by Mr Justin Ismail (“Mr Ismail”) of counsel under the instruction of Messrs K.M. Lai & Li. 20.Despite the Joint Statement of Issues, at trial, the remaining live issues between the parties were: (a) whether the source(s) of leakage were Ds’ Premises, (b) if so, whether Ds were liable for PL’s loss and damage, and (c) what is the entitlement of PL? E. RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES 21.The following principles applicable to water seepage cases are well established.
22.In addition, I share the following observations made by the learned judge in Lee Woon Ping that,
23.It is to be noted that the inconclusiveness of a negative pond test result is in line with the guidelines set out in the Professional Guide to Water Seepage Investigation, Diagnosis, Testing & Reporting in Residential Buildings (2014 edition), published by the Hong Kong Institution of Surveyors (“Professional Guide”). In that regard, Mr Ismail referred me to Rich Target Properties Ltd v Treasure Ring Ltd [2025] 3 HKLRD 344 (at [81]–[84]) and argued that, unless there is a specific factual explanation for the absence of colour dye at the leakage point, one should not dismiss a negative test result as inconclusive. I am not persuaded by this argument. The Professional Guide reflects the collective expertise and judgment of professionals with relevant experience. If the Guide concludes that a negative test result does not conclusively prove that the suspected source is not leaking, in my view, it is not for the Court to assume that an explanation for the negative result (other than the suspected source is not leaking) can always be identified. F. FACTUAL EVIDENCE F1. PL’s witness - Madam Ho 24.Madam Ho gave evidence for PL. The following was her evidence. 25.Madam Ho was born in 1954, aged 62 when the water leakage first occurred, and 71 at the time of trial. PL’s Premises was originally owned by PL and his mother jointly since 1980. After PL’s mother passed away, PL became the sole owner. 26.Madam Ho is the wife of PL. At the time of the water leakage, around 2016, PL, Madam Ho and their two sons were living in PL’s Premises. In around February 2020, PL suffered a head injury in a traffic accident and thereafter moved into an elderly home. Since that time, Madam Ho and her younger son have continued to live in PL’s Premises. 27.Back in or around May 2016, Madam Ho observed a significant water leak affecting the ceiling and walls of PL’s Premises. Consequently, the following damage occurred: (a) spalling of concrete and tiles at the ceilings and roof beams of both bathrooms and the kitchen; (b) spalling of concrete at the ceiling of the living/dining room; (c) delamination of paint on the walls; etc. Additionally, clothing stored in the wardrobe became wet and was damaged. 28.In July 2016, Madam Ho lodged a formal complaint with the Joint Office regarding water leakage originating from Ds’ Premises. In response, the Joint Office conducted a coloured water test in Ds’ Premises and confirmed that the drainage system in Ds’ Premises was the source of the leakage. 29.After November 2016, despite Madam Chan’s assertion that works had been carried out in the bathroom of Unit 1 to address the issue, the water seepage in PL’s Premises persisted. By July 2017, the water seepage had significantly worsened. Madam Ho annotated two separate plans to illustrate the extent of water leakage in 2016 and July 2017, which were marked as Exhibits P1 and P2, respectively. She testified that the areas affected by leakage on the walls and ceiling had increased twofold and fourfold, respectively. When asked about the volume of water leaking into PL’s Premises, she estimated it to be approximately five buckets per day. 30.Madam Ho further explained that the leakage was intermittent, sometimes lasting around ten days, and at other times, more than twenty days. During this period, the wall surrounding the air-conditioner and the area around the electric switch were also affected; Madam Ho reported experiencing an electric shock. Out of concern for her safety, she filed a further complaint with the Joint Office. 31.Using the telephone number provided by the Joint Office, Madam Ho contacted the owners of Ds' Premises. Madam Chan (Ds’ mother) answered the call but responded angrily and refused to communicate further. Ds also failed to respond to Madam Ho and took no action to address the water leakage issue. 32.As water leakage inside PL’s Premises persisted, Madam Ho engaged Mr Yeung in or around June 2019 to conduct a condition survey and prepare a report. Mr Yeung completed his report on 25 June 2019 [3]. In his findings, he concluded that the water leakage in PL’s Premises originated from Ds’ Premises. He also observed significant concrete spalling inside PL’s Premises and recommended repairs to the ceiling and walls. A copy of the report was sent to Ds concurrently. 33.On 17 and 18 March 2023, experts appointed by both parties, Mr Yeung (for PL) and Ir Wu Chi Cheung, Raymond (“Mr Wu”) (for Ds), jointly conducted water ponding tests in the five bathrooms of Ds’ Premises. Following the tests, the experts carried out a joint inspection on 6 April 2023 to determine whether any coloured water from the tests appeared at the leakage points in PL’s Premises. Madam Ho noted that, after these tests and the subsequent inspection, the water leakage gradually subsided and ultimately ceased. Only occasional condensation droplets (倒汗水) appeared on the wall of Bedroom 1 when there was a significant temperature difference. She further clarified that these droplet-shaped condensations differed from the previous water seepage, which formed a continuous flow path on the walls. 34.Although the water leakage ceased, the watermarks caused by the previous leakage remained. The fallen concrete and exposed reinforcements in the building structure are yet to be repaired. Furthermore, the spalling concrete at the ceiling and walls of PL’s Premises continues to pose a safety risk to Madam Ho and her family. 35.In dealing with Mr Wu’s opinion that the water damage in PL’s Premises was caused by either water condensation due to high humidity and poor ventilation or seepage of rainwater through the external wall at the Lightwell, Madam Ho further testified that the last general renovation of the building was done in 2016, no repair work was carried out to the external wall at the Lightwell in 2015, yet, after the water supply to Ds’ Premises was cut off by Ds in 2013, there was no more water leakage in PL’s Premises even during the time when typhoon signal No 10 or black rainstorm signal was hoisted. The interior of PL’s Premises remained dry. 36.Madam Ho further said that due to lack of means, PL could not carry out the necessary repair work before he received the financial compensation from Ds. 37.Madam Ho is not a sophisticated person. She strikes me as an honest and straightforward witness; her evidence was generally supported by contemporaneous documents. It is to be noted that there exist many photographs recording the appalling condition inside PL’s Premises. The water leakage inside PL’s Premises was not only supported by photographic records but also by the investigation and test reports commissioned by the Joint Office. At trial, Ds have not seriously disputed that there was serious water damage inside PL’s Premises. 38.Although Madam Ho might not be entirely accurate on the amount of water leakage in 2017, when she figuratively described it as about five buckets of water per day, my overall assessment of Madam Ho’s evidence is that it was logical, reasonable and consistently with the contemporaneous documents; I therefore accept her evidence. F2. Investigations carried out by the Joint Office 39.From the documents presented by the parties, it is not disputed that upon the complaint of Madam Ho, the Joint Office not only carried out investigation on the cause of water leakage, they have also commissioned external consultants to carry out inspections and tests at both PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises at different stages. Details of the work performed, and the corresponding findings are set out below:
40.From the inspection and test reports produced at the time, the following are noted:
41.In interpreting the above results, I bear in mind the following:
42.Further, by a letter dated 11 July 2016[11], the Joint Office informed Madam Ho that, following its investigation, it had discovered a leak in the drainage pipe in the bathroom floor of Unit 1 inside Ds’ Premises. And the Joint Office subsequently issued a “防擾事故通知書” (“Nuisance Notice”) to Ds, requiring them to carry out the specified repair work. 43.Therefore, according to the documentary records issued by the Joint Office and its consultants, Savills and Prudential, between March 2016 and March 2019, water seepage or leakage occurred inside PL’s Premises, and damage was done to the interior of the property. Regarding the source(s) of water leakage, one of them was the drainage pipe in the bathroom floor of Unit 1 of Ds’ Premises, other possible sources were unidentified. F3. Ds’ witnesses 44.Madam Chan and the 2nd Defendant gave evidence at trial. F3.1 Madam Chan 45.Madam Chan was the person dealing with Madam Ho’s initial complaint about water leakage in 2016. She has arranged for the inspection and carrying out of the repair work in Ds’ Premises at that stage. Here is her evidence. 46.Madam Chan is the mother of the Ds. Ds acquired Ds’ Premises on 1 April 2004. The original internal layout of Ds’ Premises had three bedrooms, two kitchens and two bathrooms. Shortly after the acquisition, Ds converted the interior layout into five subdivided units, each with an ensuite toilet, and then rented them out. Madam Chan was entrusted by Ds with managing the property, including renting out the subdivided units. 47.While Madam Ho said that when she called Madam Chan in 2016, she was very angry and refused to have any dialogue with her, Madam Chan testified that she had missed Madam Ho’s called, when she returned her call the next day, Madam Ho refused to allow her to inspect PL’s Premises, as Madam Chan was not the owner of Ds’ Premises. Madam Chan then asked Madam Ho to seek assistance from FEHD. This is in stark contrast with Madam Ho’s evidence. 48.In around mid-March 2016, one Mr Yu from the Joint Office called Madam Chan regarding the water leakage occurred in PL’s Premises. The Joint Office subsequently performed tests in Ds’ Premises on 30 March 2016. In around mid-October 2016, Mr Yu called Madam Chan again and informed her that “被告人單位的一號房浴室內一幅牆身中間位置有漏水情況，導致樓下漏水，叫本人拍硬檔整咗佢”. 49.Therefore, in around mid-November 2016, Madam Chan engaged someone to replace the waterproofing layer and flooring of the bathroom; the toilet bowl inside was also reinstalled. After the floor was opened up, as the worker did not notice any sign of water leakage, the drainage pipes in the floor were not replaced. During the repair work, Mr Yu came and took photos. 50.After the repair work in November 2016, the Joint Office did not follow up on the water leakage. Madam Chan said the lack of further action from the Joint Office indicated that it was satisfied with the work done. 51.However, in around mid-2017, Mr Yu called Madam Chan again, telling her that the water leakage in PL’s Premises persisted and requesting access to Ds’ Premises for carrying out further tests therein. Tests were then carried out by the Joint Office in July 2017. 52.In around mid-December 2017, Mr Yu called Madam Chan and told her that PL’s Premises was still suffering from water leakage. This time, the Joint Office engaged an external consultant, Prudential Surveyors International Ltd, to carry out inspections and tests at the end of December 2017. 53.After the said two further rounds of tests, Madam Chan did not hear anything from the Joint Office again. However, Madam Ho continued to complain about water leakage in PL’s Premises. 54.Later on, Madam Chan was told by Mr Wu, ie Ds’ expert, that the Joint Office’s finding in 2016 was probably based on a test report dated 17 June 2016, which found that the leakage in PL’s Premises was caused by the damaged drainage pipe in the bathroom (of Unit 1). It was not due to a leak in the bathroom wall. 55.For the repair work at the bathroom of Unit 1 carried out in 2016, Madam Chan said that, at that time, she simply followed Mr Yu’s instruction; she did not check whether the source of water leakage was really from the said bathroom and did not inspect the drainage pipes or repair them. She further clarified that no repairs were made to the wall of the bathroom in question. 56.When questioned, Madam Chan confirmed that the tenants would shower in the bathrooms, and that water from the showers would splash onto the wall. 57.Madam Chan further testified that, in November 2016, repairs were carried out to all the bathrooms in Ds’ Premises, and to enable such work to proceed, the tenants had to vacate the units. After the repair, the subdivided units were left vacant for some time before new tenants gradually moved in. However, the 2nd Defendant, when she gave evidence in court, said that her mother was a bit confused, the repair work in 2016 only covered the bathroom of Unit 1, not the other bathrooms, and that she knew the drainage pipe in the bathroom floor was not touched. 58.Lastly, Madam Chan confirmed that the external walls of Man On Building, including those at the Lightwell, were renovated in 2016, and not much repair work was done to the external wall after 2016. F3.2 The 2nd Defendant 59.The 2nd Defendant was not involved in the repair work carried out in the bathroom of Unit 1 in 2016; her evidence was mainly on the water ponding tests jointly conducted by the parties’ respective experts, Mr Yeung and Mr Wu, on 17 and 18 March 2023 and the subsequent cutting off of the flush water and fresh water supply to Ds’ Premises in mid-May 2023. 60.The following were set out in the 2nd Defendant’s witness statement dated 10 June 2025, which she has adopted as her evidence in chief:
61.The 2nd Defendant further testified that, in 2021, Mr Wu doubted whether the floor drainage in Unit 1’s bathroom was really leaking as stated by the Joint Office in 2016. In my view, Mr Wu had no basis to question the validity of the Joint Office’s findings made in 2016, which were based on the result of a coloured water test conducted in the bathroom in question. Had Mr Wu expressed such a view at trial, I would not accept it. According to both the Professional Guide and the Joint Office’s Specification for Water Seepage Investigation, a positive coloured water test result is conclusive evidence that the suspected source leaks. 62.When asked why Ds cut off the water supply to Ds’ Premises in May 2023 and subsequently kept the premises vacant, the 2nd Defendant avoided the question, responding with digressions and incoherence. She offered three purported reasons. The first two were: (a) a fear that a sudden pipe burst might cause water leakage in PL’s Premises, and (b) concern that tenants could damage the bathroom floor (and thus the waterproofing layer). 63.Regarding the third reason, the 2nd Defendant referred to police involvement during the water ponding test on 17 March 2023 and the presence of police officers at other times; however, her explanation was unclear and incomprehensible. 64.The first two reasons are evidently not genuine, as the risks of a burst pipe or tenant-caused damage to the bathroom floor are ongoing and not unique to the circumstances. Mr Ng suggested that Ds cut off all water supply to Ds’ Premises to create a false impression that the water leakage in PL’s Premises had ceased, a claim denied by the 2nd Defendant. 65.As to the 2nd Defendant’s earlier claim made in her statement that the water supply was cut off to prove that Ds’ Premises was not the source of the water leakage, I fail to see how secretly disconnecting the water supply to Ds’ Premises and evicting all tenants would substantiate such claim. 66.When asked why Ds did not promptly inform PL or Madam Ho that the water supply to Ds’ Premises had been cut off, the 2nd Defendant replied that it simply did not occur to her that she needed to do so. When she was pressed further, she said it had no impact on PL. These responses undermine her earlier assertion that the water supply was cut off to demonstrate that Ds’ Premises was not the source of the leakage. If that had been her genuine intention, she would have checked with PL whether the water leakage in PL’s Premises persisted after the water supply to Ds’ Premises was cut: if it did, the source would likely be elsewhere; if it ceased, Ds’ Premises would probably be the source. 67.Further, in my view, if Ds had genuinely believed that there was no leakage from the water supply or the drainage system in Ds’ Premises, they would not have disconnected the water supply and vacated their premises. Their actions, coupled with their decision to keep it a secret, would naturally give PL the false impression that Ds have abated the water leakage. At the same time, it would render any further investigation work more difficult for PL and Mr Yeung. 68.I therefore do not accept this part of her evidence. 69.The third reason advanced by the 2nd Defendant regarding police involvement relates to an unfortunate incident between Mr Yeung and Ds during the water ponding test that occurred late in the evening of 17 March 2023. The questionable conduct of Ds and their expert, Mr Wu, at that time cast doubt on the validity of the water ponding test. I will address this matter further when discussing the experts’ findings below. 70.Although I do not accept most of the 2nd Defendant’s evidence, her remaining evidence, together with that of Madam Chan, clearly establishes that Ds never undertook any repairs to the drainage pipe or the bathroom wall in Unit 1. Notably, neither Madam Chan nor the 2nd Defendant disputed that, after the water supply to Ds’ Premises was cut in May 2023, no further complaints about water leakage in PL’s Premises were received from PL or Madam Ho. It is also undisputed between the parties that no major renovation or repair was conducted on the external wall at the Lightwell after 2016. G. EXPERT OPINION 71.As mentioned above, Mr Yeung was initially engaged by Madam Ho to conduct a condition survey of Ps’ Premises in June 2019; his survey report was produced and sent to Ds on 25 June 2019. PL continued to retain Mr Yeung as his expert at trial. 72.Mr Wu was appointed by Ds as their expert. 73.For this action, they have jointly conducted the following inspections and tests at PL’s and Ds’ Premises:
74.A Joint Report was filed and served on 31 July 2023. During the trial, a Supplement Joint Expert Report was filed and served on 14 October 2025. 75.As Mr Wu, during his evidence, shifted his emphasis to his protimeter measurements regarding the risk of condensation inside PL’s Premises, which he had unilaterally taken at Ps’ Premises without the prior agreement of Mr Yeung, I granted leave to PL to file a further expert report in response. Pursuant to the leave, Mr Yeung filed the “Expert Report on Reliability of Condensation Function in Protimeter” on 14 November 2025. 76.Both experts gave evidence at trial and were subject to cross-examination by the opposing party. G1. Mr Yeung’s evidence 77.Mr Yeung carried out repeated inspections at both PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises at different times; his findings are summarized in the table below:
78.Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that upon the joint inspections, Mr Wu agreed that:
79.While both experts confirmed that no coloured water was found in the Kitchen, Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2, Living Room, Bedrooms 2, 3 and 4 during the inspection on 6 April 2023, I note that, as recorded by Mr Wu in the Joint Expert Report, the coloured water used in the ponding test for the bathroom of Unit 3 was found to be fully drained away when the experts returned on 18 March 2023. Hence, the said water test was not successfully completed, and the negative result was definitely unreliable. 80.Based on what Mr Yeung observed during the inspections and the water ponding test results, he opined that:
81.Mr Yeung opined that the whole PL’s Premises was affected by water leakage. As to the possible source(s) of water leakage at different locations, his opinions are as follows:
82.Mr Yeung further pointed out that immediately after the water ponding test on 18 March 2023 and during the inspection on 6 April 2023, positive moisture content readings were noted in Bedroom 1, Bathrooms 1 and 2, and Kitchen. This indicated that the water seepage into PL’s Premises originated from Ds’ Premises; the leakage persisted and would recur when the bathrooms inside Ds’ Premises were in use. 83.In response to Mr Wu’s suggestion that the water droplets on the internal wall of Bedroom 1 resulted from condensation due to poor ventilation in PL’s Premises, Mr Yeung disagreed, dismissing this explanation as unscientific. Mr Yeung explained that:
84.Regarding Mr Wu’s suggestion that the water damage in PL’s premises was caused by rainwater seeping through the external wall above the window at the Lightwell, Mr Yeung disagreed. He considered this unlikely because: (a) a canopy above the window on the external wall, together with the small size of the lightwell, meant that both the wall and window were sufficiently sheltered from rain; (b) there was no continuous structural crack connecting the external wall to the interior area of PL’s Premises where the seepage occurred, for example, Bedroom 4 was almost 30 feet away from the Lightwell; and (c) the presence of chloride and ammonia in the water droplets found in Bedroom 1 ruled out the possibility of rainwater being the source. 85.Mr Yeung maintained that the coloured water droplets observed on 6 April 2023 originated from the 24-hour water test conducted on 17 and 18 March 2023. It was because,
86.Mr Yeung further observed that the damage to the walls and ceiling in PL’s Premises, including concrete spalling, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, water marks, and stains, was located directly beneath the bathrooms of Ds’ Premises. He therefore concluded that the unauthorised internal alterations carried out by Ds were the primary cause of water seepage in PL’s Premises. 87.At trial, Mr Yeung further added that, because the surrounding walls of the bathrooms in Ds’ Premises were constructed of brick, water from showers could infiltrate the walls and seep downward into PL’s premises. However, since he had not considered this possibility at the time, no water spray tests were conducted on those walls. G1.1 The conflict between Mr Yeung and Ds during the water ponding test on 17 March 2023 (the “17 March Incident”) 88.This is related to the third reason advanced by the 2nd Defendant for cutting off all water supply to the Ds’ Premises in mid-2023. 89.Water ponding tests at the five bathrooms in the Ds’ Premises were conducted on 17 and 18 March 2023, pursuant to the order of Master Shum dated 1 March 2023. These tests were to be jointly carried out by Mr Yeung and Mr Wu. The order also required a subsequent joint inspection within 21 days of the ponding tests, which took place on 6 April 2023. 90.According to Mr Yeung, he and Mr Wu had previously agreed that no one should be present in Ds’ Premises during the ponding tests, in order to prevent any interference. 91.Mr Wu, however, denied the existence of such an agreement. 92.I do not accept Mr Wu’s evidence. According to Mr Wu’s evidence, he requested Ds to stay in the corridor outside Ds’ Premises for 24 hours during the test. The 2nd Defendant further testified that she purchased a new combination pad lock specifically for that occasion. If there had been no such agreement between the experts, these precautions would have been unnecessary. 93.During the evening of 17 March, while conducting the ponding tests, both experts initially remained in PL’s Premises to monitor the situation. At approximately 10 pm, Mr Yeung’s assistant informed him that there were people inside Ds’ Premises. 94.Mr Yeung subsequently went up to the fourth floor to check and saw a man and two women inside Ds’ Premises. Mr Yeung testified that, upon confronting them, the man behaved aggressively and used triad-related language. Fearing for his personal safety, Mr Yeung reported the incident to the police. 95.In re-examination, the 2nd Defendant claimed not to know why Mr Yeung called the police on that occasion. However, after further questioning, she admitted that she was present, and that the other man and woman identified by Mr Yeung were her brother (the 1st Defendant) and his wife. Given that the 2nd Defendant was at the scene, and according to her own account was in the corridor outside Ds’ Premises, I do not accept that she was unaware of the reason for contacting the police. 96.As to whether Ds were inside their premises at the relevant time, thereby breaching the experts’ agreement, the 2nd Defendant initially denied any such entry. However, after further questioning and a series of contradictory responses, she ultimately admitted that they had, in fact, entered Ds’ Premises. When pressed for an explanation, she asserted that her entry was solely to ensure everything was in order, given that tenants’ property was present inside. 97.In my assessment, the 2nd Defendant’s account of the 17 March Incident lacks credibility. The main door of Ds’ Premises must have already been secured with a lock, and there was no evidence to suggest that anyone other than the tenants or Ds possessed a key. As such, acquiring an additional combination pad lock for this occasion appears unwarranted. Moreover, if a new pad lock had indeed been purchased and installed, it would have been unnecessary for Ds and the 1st Defendant’s wife to remain in the corridor outside the premises, much less for 24 hours. I can discern no legitimate reason for their entry into Ds’ Premises at 10 pm. 98.Meanwhile, Mr Wu’s response at the time upon learning of the conflict between Mr Yeung and Ds in Ds’ Premises was, at best, highly unusual. He elected to remain in PL’s Premises even after Mr Yeung’s departure. During cross-examination, Mr Wu explained that he did not investigate the matter because he was focused on inspecting for water leakage in PL’s Premises and had been instructed by Ds’ solicitors to remain there. 99.Mr Wu further claimed he did not notice Mr Yeung leaving PL’s Premises. It is important to note that PL’s Premises was only approximately 300 square feet in size, and both experts were monitoring the situation together. The assertion that he failed to notice Mr Yeung’s departure under these circumstances is simply not credible. 100.In my view, since the water tests were conducted jointly with both experts present to oversee the process, it is implausible that Mr Wu - if he were truly unaware of any wrongdoing by Ds - would not have immediately gone upstairs to investigate upon learning that Mr Yeung was arguing with Ds about the water ponding tests. 101.The next day, when the experts returned to Ds’ Premises, they found that the dyed water in the bathroom of Unit 3 had drained away. 102.Although there was no direct evidence that Ds had tampered with the water ponding tests, the questionable conduct of both Ds and Mr Wu, as described above, casts doubt on the validity of the negative test results. G1.2 Joint inspection on 6 April 2023 103.Regarding the joint inspection on 6 April 2023, Mr Yeung testified that he had observed coloured water droplets on the wall in Bedroom 1 during the inspection. However, when he pointed them out to Mr Wu, Mr Wu immediately wiped away the droplets, claiming he was collecting a sample for further testing. In the subsequent Joint Expert Report, Mr Wu asserted that no coloured droplets were observed during the inspection, nor did Mr Yeung ever inform him of their presence at that time. I note that Mr Yeung’s complaint was documented in his letter dated 10 May 2023, though it was denied by Ds’ solicitors. I will further address this issue in the following section. 104.I find Mr Yeung to be a fair, helpful, and highly knowledgeable expert in water leakage investigation. He made every effort to assist the Court, offering balanced and sensible opinions that were consistent with common sense and everyday experience. When shortcomings in his investigation were identified, he readily acknowledged them. For example, when questioned by the Court about the absence of water spraying tests on the bathroom walls — given that the tenants showered in the bathrooms and no waterproofing work had been applied to the surrounding walls — he did not offer excuses or attempt to downplay their necessity. Instead, he candidly admitted that, had he considered it at the time, he would have conducted the tests. 105.I accept Mr Yeung’s evidence. G2. Mr Wu’s evidence G2.1 Lack of impartiality 106.Mr Wu, in his capacity as an expert, gave evidence that was highly unsatisfactory and unhelpful. Not only were his opinions blatantly unreliable - being contrary to common sense and unsupported by undisputed or indisputable facts - but, more concerningly, he demonstrated a wrong attitude and a complete disregard for his duty as an expert witness to the court. Throughout the proceedings, he acted as an advocate for Ds rather than as an impartial expert. 107.First, instead of cooperating with Mr Yeung to identify and conduct the most appropriate tests for the specific circumstances and thereby assist the court in determining the most probable source or sources of leakage, Mr Wu chose to disagree with Mr Yeung on nearly every point. Mr Yeung testified that Mr Wu had been aggressive and confrontational; it was almost impossible to discuss, let alone agree, on anything with him during the joint investigation or the preparation of the Joint Expert Report. I note that even on issues as minor as the designation of rooms within the Premises and the different joint inspections conducted, the experts could not reach agreement on a common set of designations.[14] 108.Second, rather than promptly raising any concerns with Mr Yeung regarding the methodology employed for the water ponding test during the investigation, Mr Wu withheld his objections until the preparation of the Joint Report, apparently intending to use them later to undermine the test results or Mr Yeung’s opinions. His overall approach to the joint investigation focused on identifying procedural faults in order to challenge the validity of the investigation after the fact. For example, in the Joint Report, Mr Wu raised the following criticisms of the 24-hour water ponding test:
The 24-hour ponding test was intended to form part of the joint inspection or investigation by both experts. The tests were supposed to be jointly conducted. If Mr Wu had concerns about how the test ought to be conducted, he should have raised them with Mr Yeung at the time to ensure the validity of the results or conducted his own test in the manner he deemed appropriate. His approach to the joint tests was unhelpful. 109.Third, in an apparent effort to support Ds’ case, Mr Wu was willing to challenge the credibility of Madam Chan’s and the 2nd Defendant’s evidence when it was unfavourable to Ds. Although both Madam Chan and the 2nd Defendant unequivocally stated that the floor drainage in the bathroom of Unit 1 was not replaced in 2016, Mr Wu nonetheless referenced a photograph - which did not actually depict any exposed drainage pipe - and insisted that the replacement had occurred in 2016. In my view, an honest expert who had not witnessed the repair work undertaken in 2016 would not have made such an unfounded assertion. Notably, even though Madam Chan had informed Mr Wu in early 2022 that the floor drain had not been repaired, Mr Wu still falsely stated in the Joint Report that it had been.[15] 110.Fourth, although Mr Wu admitted that he had not read the Nuisance Notice issued to Ds by the Joint Office in 2016 and was unaware of the specific repair work required, he nevertheless opined that Ds had completed the required repairs in accordance with the Nuisance Notice. 111.Another example of Mr Wu’s lack of impartiality and objectivity arose when he was confronted with the fact that the presence of ammonia in the water droplets on the wall indicated the water could not have been the result of rainwater seepage through the external wall. Without any supporting factual basis, Mr Wu speculated that someone might have wiped the wall at some stage with chemicals containing ammonia. Had this been a genuine concern, it would have been explored with Madam Ho during cross-examination; however, no such inquiry was made by Ds’ counsel. 112.Furthermore, at one point, Mr Wu asserted to the court that the conversion of Ds’ Premises into five subdivided units with ensuite toilets qualified as exempted work under the Building Ordinance, stating that these were not unauthorised building works (“UBW”). However, upon further questioning by the Court, Mr Wu admitted that he had reviewed the revised internal layout of Ds’ Premises and found that at least one of the subdivided units did not meet the relevant requirements for exempted works. 113.Mr Wu’s conduct was wholly unacceptable. The issue is not whether the alteration works in Ds’ Premises were, in fact, exempted or unauthorised - this is ultimately irrelevant to determining the source of the water leakage. The real concern is that Mr Wu intentionally presented an opinion to the Court that he did not genuinely believe to be correct. This constituted serious professional misconduct on his part. 114.There were additional instances in which Mr Wu appeared to confuse - or even mislead - the court in an effort to support Ds’ case. A notable example is as follows: In the Joint Expert Report, Mr Wu referenced an inspection report prepared by Savills[16] and asserted that the Building Authority did not consider the subdivided units in Ds’ Premises to be UBW. This assertion was plainly inaccurate. The Savills report merely advised the Building Department that there was no imminent structural danger in PL’s Premises; significantly, as stated in the report, the Savills inspector had not even entered Ds’ Premises as it was inaccessible. Thus, Savills could not have reached any conclusion regarding whether the subdivided units constituted UBW. 115.Another example relates to whether Mr Wu checked and recorded the relative humidity inside PL’s Premises during the inspection. His initial response misled the Court into believing that he had done so; however, upon further questioning, it became clear that he had not. 116.It therefore appears that, if necessary, Mr Wu would provide false or misleading evidence to further Ds’ case. G2.2 Mr Wu’s opinion regarding the source of water leakage 117.With respect to the source of the water leakage, Mr Wu opined that it did not originate from Ds’ Premises. He asserted that the water damage inside PL’s Premises was caused by (a) rainwater infiltration through the external wall at the Lightwell, and (b) water condensation resulting from high humidity and inadequate ventilation within PL’s Premises. In my judgment, such opinion is contrary to common sense and wholly untenable. 118.During the joint inspection on 6 April 2023, Mr Yeung tested the water droplets on the wall of Bedroom 1 and detected the presence of chloride and ammonia. Both Mr Yeung’s evidence and general scientific knowledge confirm that rainwater does not contain chloride or ammonia. Likewise, condensation formed from indoor air would not contain these substances. 119.Furthermore, if the water droplets observed on the wall in Bedroom 1 on 6 April 2023, or the water that seeped into PL’s Premises between 2016 and May 2023, were simply condensation from atmospheric moisture, as Mr Wu suggested, this moisture would not have appeared predominantly on the dividing wall between PL’s Premises and the adjacent flat, while sparing other interior walls, the ceiling, or the beam above. 120.Furthermore, I do not accept that water condensation on the surface of the ceramic tiles in the bathrooms and kitchen could have caused the tiles to detach and fall off, nor that natural condensation on the concrete surface would have led to spalling or corrosion of the embedded reinforcement. Regarding the latter, Mr Yeung opined that such an outcome would not occur. 121.Moreover, Mr Wu visited PL’s Premises only a few times in 2022 and 2023; he therefore lacks any basis to assert that PL’s Premises were consistently subject to high humidity and poor ventilation, resulting in ongoing water condensation. According to Madam Ho, condensation on the walls occurred only when there was a significant temperature difference, indicating that such condensation was not constant. Furthermore, Madam Ho was able to distinguish between condensation and water seepage based on their appearance. 122.It is noteworthy that, during the trial, Mr Wu conceded to the Court that if the amount of water leaking into PL’s Premises was as extensive as Madam Ho described, condensation could not have been the cause. Mr Wu was present in court and heard Madam Ho’s testimony, as an impartial expert, he should have proactively advised the Court during his evidence in chief that, given the significant quantity of water involved, condensation was an improbable explanation. However, he failed to do so. 123.In any event, if the true sources of water leakage were condensation and rainwater seeping through the external wall at the Lightwell, it would be illogical for the water leakage inside PL’s Premises to have ceased shortly after Ds cut off the water supply to their premises in mid-2023. Notably, (a) no repair or renovation was carried out on the external wall at the Lightwell after mid-2023, and (b) Madam Ho’s unchallenged testimony was that, after mid-2023, no further water leakage occurred, even during typhoons and black rainstorms, and PL’s Premises remained dry. Mr Wu admitted that, despite the black rainstorms over a few days before his inspection in 2025, he observed that the leakage inside PL’s Premises had substantially improved compared with before. 124.Regardless of Mr Wu’s apparent bias and his tendency to provide false or misleading opinions in favour of Ds, for the reasons stated above, I am not persuaded that condensation or rainwater seepage through the external wall at the Lightwell caused the water damage inside PL’s Premises. Therefore, save for Mr Wu’s concession that, considering the large quantity of water involved, condensation would unlikely be the cause of leakage, his opinions are rejected. G2.3 Did Mr Wu wipe away the coloured water appeared in Bedroom 1? 125.Returning to the issue of whether Mr Wu intentionally wiped away the coloured water droplets that appeared on the wall of Bedroom 1 during the joint inspection on 6 April 2023, it is important to note that Mr Yeung was repeatedly warned about the seriousness of his accusation against Mr Wu, and that, if untrue, it could amount to contempt. Nevertheless, Mr Yeung maintained that coloured water droplets had in fact appeared on the wall and that, as soon as he pointed them out, Mr Wu immediately moved forward and wiped them away with a tissue. When confronted by Mr Yeung about this conduct, Mr Wu claimed he was merely collecting samples for testing. Mr Yeung further stated that his assistants, who were present at the time, also witnessed Mr Wu’s actions. 126.Mr Wu denied these allegations. Consequently, no test report exists for any samples purportedly taken on 6 April 2023. 127.At trial, Mr Wu testified that he did not observe any coloured water on the wall of Bedroom 1 during the inspection and that he never used tissue paper to wipe water from the wall. He emphasised that Mr Yeung did not even check for the presence of coloured water during the inspection, let alone point out any coloured water droplets. Furthermore, Mr Wu maintained that it would have been impossible to wipe away all the water on the wall with a piece of tissue. 128.Mr Yeung’s accusation pertains to specific actions: (a) Mr Yeung informed Mr Wu of the presence of coloured water droplets on the wall, and (b) Mr Wu subsequently wiped them away. Mr Wu denied both allegations[17]. There is no possibility of misunderstanding or miscommunication between the two experts. Either the incident occurred or it did not; one of them must be giving false testimony. If it did occur, Mr Wu’s conduct would amount to serious misconduct and would undermine the proper administration of justice. 129.Having considered the matters set out below, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that: (a) following the water ponding tests conducted at Ds’ Premises on 17 and 18 March 2023, coloured water droplets appeared on the wall of Bedroom 1 in PL’s Premises on 6 April 2023; (b) these droplets were observed by Mr Yeung; and (c) when Mr Yeung pointed them out, Mr Wu wiped them away, thereby destroying evidence adverse to Ds.
130.At trial, Mr Ng referred me to several court judgments in which Mr Wu was criticised for similar conduct: Yu Siu Hung v Yuen Man Chiu Roger, LDBM 292/2009, unreported, 21 November 2014; Yeung Yik Chun v Wong Lai Ming and Another [2023] HKDC 1160; and Wong Wah On Edward v Lok Shor Bing [2024] HKDC 16. It appears that Mr Wu has not learned from his past mistakes and continues to disregard his duties and responsibilities as an expert. These obligations were clearly articulated by Lam J (as he then was) in Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Cheun, HCAP 8/2007, unreported, 2 February 2010, at paragraphs 484 to 493 of the Judgment, which I quote below as a reminder to professionals who provide expert opinion in court:
H. WAS Ds’ PREMISES THE SOURCE OF WATER LEAKAGE IN PL’s PREMISES? 131.Upon a comprehensive assessment of the factual evidence and expert opinions, especially the following points, I am satisfied that the source of water leakage or seepage in PL’s Premises was Ds’ Premises.
I. ARE Ds LIABLE FOR THE LOSS AND DAMAGE SUFFERED BY PL? 132.The mere fact that water leakage is traced to the defendant’s property does not automatically give rise to liability. To establish liability in nuisance, it must be demonstrated that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the water leakage originating from his premises. For these purposes, “knowledge” encompasses both actual awareness and what the defendant ought reasonably to have known by exercising normal and reasonable diligence. A defendant who possesses such knowledge will be liable if he fails to take prompt and reasonable remedial action to address the water leakage: Wu Hucheng v Tian Jiong & Another [2024] HKDC 1902 at §50; Loke Yuen Jean Tak Alice v Wong & Others, HCA 495/2012, 1 August 2019 at §55; Larbons Limited v Kuo You Weaving Factory Ltd, DCCJ 934/2006, 12 July 2007 at §76. 133.Accordingly, a defendant who lacks actual or constructive knowledge that water leakage emanates from his property is not liable. However, once the defendant acquires the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, they will be liable unless remedial action is taken without delay: Tin Kin Ka Clara v Chan Koon Cheong & Another, DCCJ 3139/2012, 11 May 2015 at §§54-55; Leung Wai Kee v Tam Yuen Sheng, DCCJ 5716/2007, 10 July 2012 at §43. 134.A claim in negligence will stand or fall with a claim in nuisance. The principles of negligence and nuisance coincide in that, where an owner knows or ought to know that their conduct or omission in relation to their land will cause harm to a neighbour, they are under a duty to prevent or abate such harm: Siu Kwok Keung Raymond v Yee Shia Yuen, DCCJ 2131/2012, unreported, 31 October 2017 at §101. 135.The central issue is whether Ds had actual or constructive knowledge that the water leakage originated from their premises. 136.At the material times, Madam Chan was entrusted by Ds to manage Ds’ Premises. The evidence clearly establishes that she received complaints about water leakage in PL’s premises directly from Madam Ho when the issue began in early 2016. 137.Following an investigation by the Joint Office, the Nuisance Notice was issued to Ds around July 2016, informing them of water leakage from the floor drainage of the bathroom in Unit 1, and requesting that they carry out the necessary repairs. 138.Subsequently, in around mid-October 2016, Madam Chan was further notified by Mr Yu of the Joint Office that water was leaking from the middle part of the bathroom wall in Unit 1 down to PL’s premises. Ds were once again requested to rectify the leakage. 139.However, although Madam Chan engaged a contractor to address the matter, no repairs were carried out to the floor drain or the wall in question. 140.Water leakage in PL’s Premises got worse in mid-2017. In July and December 2017, Madam Chan was again notified by the Joint Office of the leakage in PL’s Premises. Thereafter, Madam Ho continued to make repeated complaints to Madam Chan about the ongoing issue. Yet, no action was taken by Ds. 141.In June 2019, PL engaged Mr Yeung to conduct a condition survey. On 25 June 2019, a copy of Mr Yeung’s report, which concluded that the source of water leakage in PL’s Premises was from Ds’ Premises, was sent to Ds. In his covering letter, Mr Yeung requested Ds to take the necessary action to rectify the leakage. Once again, no action was taken by Ds. 142.I am satisfied that Ds, at all material times, had actual knowledge of the water leakage in PL’s Premises but failed to take the necessary steps to abate the harm caused to PL’s Premises, PL, and his family. 143.In the premises, Ds were both negligent and liable for nuisance. 144.On the facts, Ds, being the legal owners of Ds’ Premises, were also in breach of clause 34H of BMO and clause 10 of the DMC, in that they failed to properly maintain their property (viz. Ds’ Premises) in good repair and condition, and allowed the same to become a nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to PL and his family. 145.Accordingly, Ds are liable for the loss and damage suffered. J. Ds’ CONDUCT WAS UNREASONABLE 146.When the water leakage began in 2016, the Joint Office clearly identified the source as the floor drainage and wall of the bathroom in Unit 1. Nuisance Notice was issued to Ds. Nevertheless, they relied on the contractor's opinion that the drainage did not appear to be leaking, and chose not to carry out any repairs to the drainage or the wall. 147.When Ds were notified by the Joint Office of further water leakage in 2017, they took no action to repair the floor drain or the bathroom wall in question. 148.Ds continued to ignore Madam Ho’s complaints and the conclusion in Mr Yeung’s Condition Survey Report; no action was taken. 149.After the commencement of the present proceedings, although Ds were aware that the floor drain in the bathroom had not been repaired, they falsely pleaded in their Defence that:
150.Despite knowing that the above pleas were false, the 2nd Defendant nevertheless signed the Statement of Truth, asserting their truthfulness. Had Ds honestly admitted that the floor drain, condemned by the Joint Office in 2016, had in fact not been repaired, the case would likely have been resolved at that stage. 151.Instead, Ds chose to contest PL’s claim and engaged an expert to advance untenable arguments in these proceedings, including the baseless assertion that the floor drain had been repaired, in support of their defence. 152.Following the completion of the water ponding tests in April 2023, Ds inexplicably cut off all water supply to their premises and vacated all the subdivided units, without notifying PL or the experts. The explanations offered by the 2nd Defendant were unconvincing. Had Ds genuinely sought to demonstrate that their premises were not the source of the leakage as they claimed, they would have promptly checked with PL to ascertain whether the water leakage persisted. They failed to do so. 153.Had Ds checked with PL, as any reasonable party would, they would have discovered that, once the water supply to their premises was cut off, the water leakage in PL’s Premises ceased. This would have constituted a strong indication that Ds’ Premises were the source of the leakage. 154.By cutting off the water supply to Ds’ Premises, not only did they give PL the false impression that the sources of leakage had been addressed, but they also made further water tests in Ds’ Premises significantly more difficult, if not impossible. In my judgment, this was likely Ds’ intention. 155.Later, when the Defence was amended in June 2024, Ds persisted in the false assertions within the Amended Defence that the floor drain in the bathroom of Unit 1 had been repaired in 2016. 156.Had Ds acted reasonably since 2016, the issue of water leakage in PL’s Premises would likely have been resolved much earlier, sparing PL and his family from enduring such appalling living conditions for over a decade. K. INJUNCTION 157.Although the water leakage in PL’s Premises ceased after May 2023, the sources of leakage in Ds’ Premises remain unresolved. Consequently, the leakage will inevitably resume once the water supply to Ds’ Premises is restored - a point acknowledged by the 2nd Defendant in cross-examination. There is therefore a real risk of future interference with PL’s right by Ds. Furthermore, it appears that Ds have focused more on contesting PL’s claim than on addressing the sources of leakage or generating rental income from their premises. Accordingly, I am satisfied that an injunctive order is justified in these circumstances. 158.With respect to the sources of water leakage, while I am satisfied that Ds’ Premises was the source, the extent and specific locations of seepage in PL’s Premises, as observed by the experts, indicate that the bathroom in Unit 1 is unlikely to be the sole cause. Additional sources may yet need to be identified. This conclusion is supported by: (a) the unsuccessful water ponding test in the bathroom of Unit 3, which rendered the corresponding result unreliable; (b) inconclusive negative ponding test results for the other bathrooms; (c) the watertightness of the bathroom walls used as shower cubicles, which remains untested by the experts; and (d) Mr Yeung’s opinion that the clear water droplets found on the wall of Bedroom 1 during the inspection on 6 April 2023 originated from sources other than the floor drain of Unit 1’s bathroom. Accordingly, the injunctive order should not be confined solely to rectifying the floor drainage and wall of the bathroom in Unit 1. 159.In addition to the standard injunctive relief, Mr Ng urged the Court to issue a further order requiring Ds to provide a certificate of satisfaction regarding the rectification works, to be issued by an Authorised Person or other relevant professionals jointly appointed by the parties. While such an order is uncommon in water-leakage cases, it is not unprecedented; a similar order was granted in Chiu Yi Tung v Lo Yue Fung Franky and Another [2023] HKDC 1117. 160.In this case, considering the following factors: (a) the questionable conduct of Ds and Mr Wu during the 17 March Incident; (b) Ds’ subsequent decision to secretly cut off all water supply to their premises in May/June 2023 without notifying PL or the experts, thereby giving PL the false impression that the water leakage had been resolved; and (c) the fact that reinstatement works in PL’s Premises cannot be effectively undertaken until remedial works in Ds’ Premises are satisfactorily completed, I consider it necessary to issue a further ancillary order specifying how Ds are to demonstrate compliance with the primary injunctive order to abate the water leakage. L. DAMAGES 161.For the loss and damage suffered, PL claims the following:
L1. Costs of repair and reinstatement 162.Mr Yeung did a survey of the damage caused to the interior of PL’s Premises and recommended the following work to be done by way of reinstatement:
163.Mr Wu was of the opinion that an examination of the existing electrical system was unnecessary. I disagree. Madam Ho testified that she experienced electric shocks from the switches in the area affected by water leakage. Given the safety implications, a comprehensive inspection of the electrical system in PL’s premises is clearly warranted. It should also be noted that, should any repairs to the electrical system be required following the inspection, the associated costs are not included in PL’s claim. 164.Further taking into consideration of the damage done as shown in the photographs, I am satisfied that the reinstatement works recommended are reasonable in the circumstances. 165.Based on Mr Yeung’s on-site inspection and measurements, he assessed the reinstatement costs at $438,400.30, including an additional 20% of the construction costs as preliminaries. I have no reason to doubt Mr Yeung’s assessment of the construction costs, nor do I find the 20% allowance for preliminaries unreasonable. 166.I have also considered the corresponding quantum assessment of Mr Wu; however, not only had he not allowed any costs for the inspection of the electrical system, but he had also underestimated the quantities of work required. His assessment is therefore unreliable. 167.Accordingly, this item is allowed in full. 168.However, as Mr Yeung’s assessment was based on July 2023 costs, he stated that an annual increment of 3% to 5% should be applied for inflation. I have therefore adopted an annual increment of 4% to determine that the current reinstatement costs are approximately $491,000. L2. Costs of alternative accommodation 169.Based on a reinstatement period of 3 months, PL claims a lump sum of $30,000 as the costs of alternative accommodation. 170.In view of the nature of the reinstatement works to be performed, it is reasonable for the PL’s family to seek an alternative accommodation during the execution of the work. Although Mr Yeung has not expressed any view on the time required for the reinstatement works, the lump sum currently claimed by PL (which is deemed to include two sets of moving costs) does not appear to be excessive. This item is also allowed. L3. Costs of replacement of the damaged furniture and personal belongings 171.Under this head, PL claims $11,000 for repair works necessitated by the fallen air-conditioner in 2022. This claim is supported by an invoice from Winner Engineer Company dated 28 July 2022. Ds have not disputed that the work described in the invoice was completed. Additionally, I note that Mr Yeung opined that the damage to the air-conditioner was caused by the water leakage. Accordingly, this item is allowed. 172.In addition to the air-conditioner claim, PL seeks further compensation for the costs to be incurred for replacing damaged furniture and personal belongings, in a total sum of $23,000. 173.However, no detailed list of the furniture and personal belongings to be replaced was provided; Mr Ng referred only to a set of photographs in support of this claim. The photographs show that certain wooden furniture - including a wardrobe, bed frame, mattress, and wall features - had been damaged by water. One photograph depicts a stack of clothes, but it is unclear from the image whether the clothes were damaged. Furthermore, Mr Yeung did not provide an assessment for these items. 174.I note that Mr Yeung’s assessment of the costs for reinstatement works already included the replacement of a 1.1 m wide by 2 m high wooden wall closet - an item also visible in the photographs relied upon by Mr Ng. Allowing the full amount claimed would therefore result in duplication. Doing the best I can with the available evidence, I allow a lump sum of $10,000 for these items. L4. Damages for distress, discomfort and inconvenience 175.It is firmly established that, under the law of nuisance or for breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC), an owner in occupation of a property is entitled to damages for distress, discomfort, and inconvenience arising from the defendant’s interference with their enjoyment of the property. Significantly, Mr Ismail did not contest this principle in either his written or oral submissions. 176.In advancing this claim, Mr Ng referred me to a number of authorities in which varying amounts of damages for distress and discomfort - ranging from $80,000 to $200,000 - were awarded under different factual circumstances: Cheung Wu Yau Tao v Chui Siu Har [2020] HKDC 885; Chan Albert Koon Keung and Others v Yee Yun Tung [2020] HKDC 1201; Chiu Yi Tung v Lo Yue Fung Franky and Another [2023] HKDC 1117; and Loke Yuen Jean Tak Alice v Wong Kit Ying and Another [2019] HKCFI 1895. 177.As for the suffering and inconvenience endured by PL and his family due to prolonged water leakage, Madam Ho provided the following evidence:
178.In light of the appalling conditions in PL’s Premises - as demonstrated by the extensive photographic evidence submitted by the parties and the testimony of Madam Ho - I am satisfied that the distress, discomfort, and inconvenience suffered by PL and his family in this instance was at least comparable to, if not more severe than, those considered by the court in Cheung Wu Yau Tao. Accordingly, I consider an award of $200,000 appropriate under this head of damages. M. CONCLUSION 179.For the above reasons, I give judgment in favour of PL. There shall be an injunction against Ds on the following terms:
180.Further, subject to the first charge of the Director of Legal Aid, I award damages to PL in a total sum of $731,000, inclusive of the general damages for distress, discomfort and inconvenience of $200,000. Interest shall run on the general damages at 2% per annum from the date of the service of the Writ to the date of this judgment. Further interest on the total sum of $731,000 shall run from the date of this judgment at the judgment rate until payment in full. 181.I further grant a costs order nisi that Ds shall pay PL’s costs of this action (including all costs reserved, if any) to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed. And PL’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. The said costs order nisi shall become absolute unless an application to vary is made within 14 days. 182.Lastly, I thank Mr Ng and Mr Ismail for their assistance on this matter.
Mr Ng Man Kin, of Kwok, Ng & Chan, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the plaintiff Mr Justin Ismail, instructed by K.M. Lai & Li, for the Defendants [1] D/1684 - 1699 [2] D2’s oral testimony given on 15 October 2025 [3] D/1810-1828 [4] It is Mr Yeung’s evidence that if there is no water leakage, the reading of the moisture meter would be below 20 [5] Savills Project Consultancy Limited (“Savills”) engaged by BD [6] Prudential Surveyors International Ltd. was engaged by the Joint Office to provide testing services for the investigation of the water seepage in PL’s Premises [D/1752-1793] [7] D/1712 [8] D/1713-1720 [9] D/1726 [10] D/1746 [11] D/1699 [12] Covered by the Supplemental Joint Expert Report dated 14 October 2025 [13] According to Mr Yeung, search mode was used to measure the water content at the walls of Kitchen, Bathroom 1 and Bathroom 2 because the moisture meter pins could not penetrate the ceramic wall tiles for taking measurements. If the search mode of the moisture meter is used, it can measure the moisture content at up to 20mm below surface, which, according to manufacturer’s guidelines, is more suitable for measuring moisture content at location covered by tiles. [14] C1/144-145 [15] C1/165/7.2.1-4 and C1/167/7.2.1-9 [16] Savills’ report [D/1713-1720] [17] C1/137 paragraph (g) [18] C1/136 paragraph (c) [19] C4/1073-1076 [20] In Messrs K M Lai & Li’s letter dated 19 June 2023 [Exhibit P6] [21] This does not mean that an expert witness cannot revise his opinion after his report has been filed. The court fully appreciates that it is perfectly possible that an expert may responsibly revise his opinion, particularly after he has the opportunity of reading the report of his counterpart. Indeed, in most of the cases, it would be necessary and proper to do so, as explained below. But an expert should not put into his report an argument the soundness of which he is not personally satisfied at the time when he writes the report. [22] Recorded in the video produced by Mr Wu on Day 9 of the trial [Exhibit D1] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Lai Tun Yu and Another v. Ng Hung Ming As the Executor of the Estate of Lau Ying Hing, Deceased and Another
Wong Wah on Edward v. Lok Shor Bing
Chu Cheung Cheung and Another v. The Incorporated Owners of Provident Centre No 21-53 Wharf Road, North Point, Hong Kong and Others
Yeung Yik Chun v. Wong Lai Ming and Another
Kwok Kin Nam and Another v. Ip Sau Chun Susanna and Another
Cheung Sau Fong v. Ho Chi San
羅耀珍 對 吳國強及另一人
林希敏 對 國金(香港)有限公司
Polysoon Investments Ltd v. Lau Mo Kun and Another
Shu Ka Chuen及另一人 對 Chan Kwong Wing
Tollemache Company Ltd and Others v. Raymond Lun Kwok Pao also known as Pao Lun Kwok Raymond
Lam Chin Pang and Another v. Wan Sui Ying
Wong Ping Chun v. Giant King Corporation Ltd
Lam Ching Kwong v. Man Wing Sum and Another
Loke Yuen Jean Tak Alice v. Wong Kit Ying and Another
鄭偉波 對 簡華捷
Chow Lily v. Chow Wai Wai Violet and Another
Cheng Suk Lai v. Wong Man Fai
Kan Lai Ling v. Wong Man Kit
Chiu Yi Tung v. Lo Yue Fung Franky and Another
Further hearings and rulings under DCCJ 6961/2019