Cheng Sum Ning and Another 訴 Peak Union Development Ltd

LDBM000151/2002

LDBM 151/2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第151號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

聆訊日期: 2002年8月29日、2004年1月30日、2月2日、5日及20日

宣判日期: 2004年3月18日

_______________

判 案 書

_______________

1.兩名申請人（“申請人”）是 Flat 1, 28/F, Block B, MT. Parker Lodge, 10 Hong Pak Path, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong（“處所”）的業主，而答辯人是Mt. Parker Lodge, Block B, 29/F, Flat 1的業主。

2.2002年6月11日，申請人向土地審裁處提出以下的申 請 ：

"Action to stop the leakage that has been affecting the property of the Applicants, situated at Flat 1, 28/F., Block B, Mt. Parker Lodge, 10 Hong Pak Path, Quarry Bay, H.K."

3.1996年7月，申請人開始發現處所的浴室天花漏水。2001年12月6日，申請人在小額錢債審裁處提出針對答辯人的申索，在申索書中，申請人指稱“自1997年中至今被告人之單位康景花園B2901室多次滲/漏水，使申索人之單位康景花園B2801室，天花板，浴室電器損壞，拖延數年，使本家庭生活，精神受到滋擾。期間多次電話要求徹底維修及賠償未有受理。於2001年8月13日發出信件要求賠償不受理。”2002年1月24日，小額錢債審裁處在被告人沒有出庭應訊的情況下，判決申請人勝訴。

4.2002年2月7日，申請人聘用專業評量公証行調查處所漏水的原因。2002年5月10日，公証行作出一份測量報告，該報告有以下的部 份：

"5. Survey Findings

We took inspection of 28/F. 1 premises on 7th February 2002, 28th March, 2002 and 30th April, 2002 when we observed the condition of water leakage at the ceiling slab of the said premises as follows:-

5.1 Bath Room, 28/F, 1 (photo. P.3-P.6, P.29-P.34, P.43-P.46)

- There is a damp patch about 5' x 4' at the ceiling slab of the bath room

- There is a heavy water and rust-stained mark at the ceiling light point of the ceiling slab.

- There is occasionally water dripping from the ceiling light point and the ceiling slab around the ceiling light point.

- The plaster of the ceiling slab blistered and paint work peeled.

- By the moisture tester, we found the ceiling slab of Bath room to be 100% dampness (Photo. P.4, P.5)

5.2 Master Bed Room, 28/F, 1 (Photo. P.13-P.15, P.35, P.36, P.48)

- We found water marks at the ceiling near to the side of the bath room.

- By the moisture tester, we found that the ceiling slab had been affected by water spreading from the ceiling slab of the bath room of the premises.

5.3 Corridor, 28/F, 1 (Photo. P.9, P.37, P.49)

- There are slight water marks at the ceiling slab of the corridor of the premises (there had been prominent water marks but covered by new coats of paint).

- By the moisture tester, we found it to be 50%-70% dampness.

- The wall paper on wall started peeling (photo. P.18)

5.4 Living Room, 28/F, 1 (Photo. P.10-P.12, P.38, P.39, P.50)

- There are some water marks at the ceiling slab (other water marks had been covered by coats of paint).

- The wall paper on walls alongside the joint between the walls of Bath Room and the ceiling has peeled.

- By the moisture tester, we found that the ceiling slab to be 50% dampness.

5.5 Kitchen, 28/F, 1 (photo. P.19-P.21, P.41, P.42, P.51)

- there are water marks at the ceiling slab of the kitchen (some water marks had been covered by paint work).

- By the moisture tester, we found that the ceiling slab of kitchen to be 50%-80% dampness.

....................................

6. Investigation into the Water Leakage Source

In order to confirm the origin and cause of water leakage, we probed the moisture at the ceiling slab of 28/F. 1 three times on 7.2.2002, 28.3.2002, 30.4.2002 and attained the records as follows:-

Location	1st survey 7.2.2002	2nd survey 28.3.2002	3rd survey 30.4.2002	Result of the Test.
Bath Room 28/F.1	100%	100%	100%	Water keeps leaking from the bath room of 29/F.1 through its floor slab into 28/F.1 premises
M. Bed Room, 29/F.1	60%	70%	60%	Slightly affected by water seepage with water source from the bath room of 29/F. 1 through its floor slab into 28/F.1 premises
Corridor, 28/F.1	---	50%	70%	Slightly affected by water seepage with water source from the bath room of 29/F. 1 through its floor slab into 28/F.1 premises
Living Room, 28/F.1	---	50%	50%	Previously water affected but now become gradually dry out.
Kitchen, 28/F.1	50%	60%-80%	50%	Previously water affected but now become gradually dry out.
The ceiling slab of the bath room of 30/F.1	---	60% normal (photo. P.26)	---	No water leakage from the bath room of 30/F.1 premises or its above.
The water base or floor of the bath room of 30/F.1	---	20%-30% normal (photo. P.27-P.28)	---	No water leakage from the bath room of 30/F.1 premises or its above.
External wall of the bath room of 29/F.1		Water marks (photo.P.23)		We found water marks at the external wall of 29/F.1 but no similar marks found at the external wall of other flats which evidences that water leakage origin is at the bath room of 29/F.1 premises caused flowing into 28/F.1 premises and the external wall.

7. Cause and Origin of Water Leakage

Based on our surveying, we are in the position to advise you the followings:-

7.1 That the water origin is presently at the bath room of 29/F.1 seeping through its floor slab to drip out at the ceiling slab of the bath room of 28/F.1.

7.2 Water flowed into the bath room of 28/F.1 spread to various parts of its premises including master bed room, corridor, living room and kitchen.

7.3 The cause is attributable to the water proof membrane in the floor slab of the bath room of 29/F.1 which has been wear, tear and dilapidated rendering passage of water and moisture through its floor slab of 29/F.1 to enter and drip out at ceiling slab of the bath room of 28/F.1 premises."

本席接納上述的報告內容。

5.該報告的作者黃順泰（Stewart Wong）指出2901室的浴室的地面以下約1 1/2 吋有一層2釐米厚的防水層。防水層一般的壽命約為15年，他說浴室離開主人房大約8呎，如外牆滲水，滲水只會影響離牆1呎之內的地方，而不會對8呎至10呎以外的地方有所影響。本席接納他的証供。

6.2003年6月至8月9日之間，答辯人聘請翁清林先生對2901室浴室的地台以及2901室的其他地方進行維修。他指出2901室浴室的地台（大約4呎 x 4呎）漏水，原因是地台內的水喉的長度不夠，在水喉終端的部份與去水位之間有虛位，而在大廈建造時該部份沒有塗上防漏英泥。他以防水英泥把有缺漏的地方修補，經測試後，他發覺地台再沒有滲水的情況。

7.在答辯人把地台修補後，申請人對處所的天花進行測試，天花衹有輕微的濕度，及很細小的水珠。翁清林指出在2801室的外牆有通往天台的污水喉，在喉管進入2801室入牆的地方（在2801室抽氣扇頂部）沒有接駁好，這構成該處變成滲水的地方。

8.翁清林的証供指出2901室處所的地台漏水，這與專業評量公証行報告指2901室的浴室地台漏水是一致的。大廈公契第IV部份第8及第11條是適用於本案的條文。該兩條的條文後列如下 ：

"8. Each Owner shall be responsible to the other Owners for the time being for the acts and omissions of all persons occupying with his consent expressed or implied any part or parts of the Estate owned by him and shall pay all costs, charges and expenses incurred in repairing or making good any loss or damage caused by the act, neglect or default of any such person. In the case of loss or damage for which the manager is responsible to make good or repair, such costs, charges and expenses shall be recoverable by the manager as hereinafter provided and in the case of loss or damage suffered by other Owners or occupiers of any part of the Estate for which the manager is not responsible to repair or make good, such costs, charges and expenses together with all other damages recoverable by law shall be recoverable by the person or persons sustaining the loss or damage.

.......................................

11. Each Owner shall maintain in good repair and condition to the satisfaction of the manager and in such a manner so as to avoid any loss, damage, nuisance or annoyance to the Owners or occupiers of any other part or parts of the Estate that part of the Estate in respect of which he is entitled to exclusive possession."

9.申請人在証物A6詳細列出事發經過，本席接受這書面証供。在2002年2月7日，第一申請人多次致電答辯人的董事江鳳儀女士要求答辯人進行維修及賠償，但它沒有作出回應。申請人遂於2002年6月11日入稟土地審裁處。

10.本席裁定答辯人違反大廈公契第IV部份第8及第11條的規定，它有責任對2901室浴室的地台進行維修，以免位於其下的2801室遭受2901室地台滲水而引致的損失。答辯人在申請人提出本案的申請後才對地台進行維修，因此它須賠償申請人因該地台滲漏而導致產生的損失。答辯人現已完成其責任，故此本席頒令答辯人無須維修該地台。

第一申請人：親自應訊，無律師代表。

第二申請人：由第一申請人代表，無律師代表。

答辯人：由江鳳儀女士代表，無律師代表。