Wealth Summit Development (Nominee) Ltd v. Ng Shun Oi and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1592/2003 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 November 2005.
1. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction, damages of loss of rental income, and repair costs for water leakages against its two upstairs neighbours, the 1 st and 2 nd defendants of one flat, and the 3 rd defendant of the other. The trial was on liability. By consent, the issue on quantum was severed.
Cited by 1 case
|
HCA1592/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.1592 OF 2003 ---------------------- BETWEEN
--------------------------------------- Before : Deputy High Court Judge Fung in Court Dates of Hearing : 20 – 22 December 2004, 9 - 12 August 2005 and 12 October 2005 Date of handing down Judgment : 21 November 2005 -------------------------- JUDGMENT -------------------------- 1.The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction, damages of loss of rental income, and repair costs for water leakages against its two upstairs neighbours, the 1st and 2nd defendants of one flat, and the 3rd defendant of the other. The trial was on liability. By consent, the issue on quantum was severed. 2.The 1st defendant passed away during the proceedings. By consent, the 2nd defendant was ordered to carry on the action for the 1st defendant under Order 15, rule 7(2) of the Rules of High Court (Cap. 4A). 3.By consent, the parties appointed a joint expert to find out the cause(s) of the water leakage, and to recommend the remedial work. The findings of the joint expert are binding on the parties. Hence, the issue of mandatory injunction is overtaken by the recommended remedial work under the Consent Order. Background 4.The building in question is Elegance Court in Happy Valley. The building is 23 storey high. It was first occupied in 1986. There is a low block of non-residential premises on G/F, 1/F and 2/F. There is a block of residential flats from 3/F upwards. On the 2/F roof top, there are podium in front and at the rear of the residential block. The residential block has 2 flats on each floor. Viewing the building from the front, Flat A is on the right, and Flat B is on the left. 5.The plaintiff is the owner of the of the G/F, 1/F and 2/F since October 2001. The 1st and 2nd defendants are the owner of Flat 3A with the adjoining front and rear podium since 1986, and the 3rd defendant is the owner of Flat 3B with the adjoining front and rear podium also since 1986. The front podium is divided by a parapet in the middle. 6.In Flat 3A, a glass house was constructed in front of the flat premises in the front podium. Also, a storage shed was constructed on the front podium of Flat 3A along the diving parapet. The rear podium of Flat 3A was converted into a laundry area. 7.Flat 3B was also subject to alterations. The flat premises were extended towards the front podium. The rear podium was also converted into an indoor area. 8.The 2/F is partitioned into 3 rooms. The centre part of the 2/F is the lift shafts. For ease of reference, the area underneath the rear podium of Flat 3B and is called Room 1, the area underneath the front podium and the premises of Flat 3A and Flat 3B is Room 2, and the area underneath the rear podium of Flat 3A is Room 3. There are several toilets at the back of Room 3. Issues 9.The issues are:
Water leakage 10.In March 2002, water leakage started to occur at the 2/F ceiling during decoration work. The plaintiff complained to the management office, and the management office wrote to the owners of Flat 3A and 3B in May 2002. 11.On 14 June 2002, a joint inspection was conducted by Ms. Emilie Hui, Registered Architect engaged by the 1st and 2nd defendants, in the presence of the representatives from the plaintiff and Flat 3B. The visual observations were:
12.Miss Hui concluded that the possible cause of water leakage might be: (i) defective water proofing to the flat roof; or (ii) leakage from fire services pipes passing through the beam. She recommended that waterproofing material of Flat 3A be tested with pigmented water. 13.On 15 June 2002, a joint inspection was conducted by Miller International Loss Adjusters (HK) Ltd (“Miller International”) engaged by the plaintiff in the presence of representatives from Flat 3A and 3B. The visual observations were:
14.Miller International believed that the cause of water leakage on ceiling under the podium was due to defective water proofing of the podium. 15.Miss Kitty Wong, daughter of the 2nd defendant purportedly carried out the water test recommended by Ms. Emilie Hui. She flooded the glass house area of the front podium of Flat 3A with 2 to 3 inches of blue dyed water for 5 days from 22 June 2002, and another 5 days from 10 July 2002. Unfortunately, she did not flood the entire front and rear podium of Flat 3A. 16.On 28 August 2002, Messrs. Winnie Lo & Wong, solicitors for the 1st and 2nd defendants wrote to the solicitors for the plaintiff, stating that their client had conducted water tests as recommended by the report of Ms. Emilie Hui, enclosing a copy of the report. The letter stated that despite a lapse of more than two months, no sign of leakage of pigmented water had ever appeared in the plaintiff’s premises, and that was ample evidence the leakage was not caused by the 1st and 2nd defendants. 17.On 9 December 2002, the Food and Environmental Hygience Department (“F&EHD”) carried out colour water test to the drainage system of Flat 3A. In February 2003, F&EHD wrote to the solicitors for the plaintiff and solicitors for the 1st and 2nd defendants stating that the test result showed that the leakage was not caused by any drainage pipes, and the cause of the water seepage could not be ascertained within the means of the Department. 18.On 14 March 2003, solicitors for the 1st and 2nd defendants wrote to the solicitors for the plaintiff referring to the result of the colour water test by the F&EHD, and stated that since there was no evidence which proved that causation of the water seepage was accountable to their client, they suggested the plaintiff to resolve the seepage problem with recourse to the Incorporated Owners and/or the Management Company of the building. 19.On 6 May 2003, the plaintiff commenced the present proceedings. Appointment of joint expert 20.The matter first came on to trial on 20 December 2004. A site visit was conducted on 21 December 2002. By a Consent Order dated 22 December 2002, the trial was adjourned and the plaintiff, 1st and 2nd defendants and 3rd defendant agreed, inter alia, that:
21.Mr. Richard Cheung, Chartered Surveyor was appointed as the joint expert. The joint expert prescribed the following tests to be done:
22.In February 2005, the joint expert rendered the first report (“1st Report”). The solicitors for the 1st and 2nd defendants raised certain queries to the 1st Report. The joint expert found out that there the test results by the specialists were wrongly collated, and hence his conclusions had to be revised. Revised Report 23.In August 2005, the joint expert rendered the revised report. (1) Flooding tests 24.The flooding test was to fill designated area on the 3/F to test the water proofing membrane of the 3/F. The designated area would be filled with water for an hour. Infra red thermo-scanning would be conducted at the ceiling of 2/F both before the flooding and 1 hour after the release of the water to note the different in temperature as indicating water leakage. As separate tests would be conducted to different designated areas, the source and resulting water seepage could be identified. 25.On 18 January 2005, the first flooding test was conducted at the front and rear podium of Flat 3A. Thermo-scanning at 3 p.m. detected seepages in the ceiling of Room 2, and also a small area in Room 3. The most serious spot was in Room 2 underneath the front podium near the glasshouse. There were 2 other spots in Room 2: near the lift shafts, and in the centre of Room 2, both underneath the front podium of Flat 3B. There was also a small area in the toilet in Room 3. (See Exhibit D3-1.) 26.Later on 18 January 2005, the second flooding test was conducted at the bathroom of Flat 3B. Scanning at 5 p.m. detected no seepage on the ceiling of 2/F. (See Exhibit D3-2.) 27.On 20 January 2005, the first flooding test was conducted at the front and rear podium of Flat 3B. Scanning at 2 p.m. detected seepage in the ceiling at the corner of Room 1 under the rear podium of Flat 3B. (See Exhibit D3-3.) The joint expert’s opinion was that this spot was more likely to be caused by water leakage from the rear as opposed to the front podium of Flat 3B. 28.Later on 20 January 2005, the second flooding test was conducted at the bathroom and kitchen of Flat 3A. Scanning at 4:30 p.m. detected seepage on the ceiling of Room 2 underneath the front podium near the glasshouse and the lift shafts, similar to the result after the flooding test at the front and rear podium of Flat 3A on 18 January 2005. (See Exhibit D3-4.) (2) Spraying tests 29.The spraying test was to test seepage from external walls. Water is sprayed onto the external walls outside Flat 3A and Flat 3B separately, and infra-red thermo-scanning to detect spots of seepage at the ceiling adjacent to the periphery of the external walls. 30.On 24 January 2005, the first spraying test was conducted to the external walls of Flat 3B. Thermo-scanning detected no sign of water seepage. 31.Later on the same day, the second spraying test was conducted to the eternal walls of Flat 3A. Sign of water seepage was detected in the toilet in Room 3, at the same spot after the flooding test conducted at the front and rear podium of Flat 3A on 18 January 2005. (3) Concealed water pipes detection 32.One concealed water pipe was found in the living room of Flat 3B. No leakage was detected. (4) Fluorescent dye tests 33.Fluorescent dye was poured into the drainage systems of Flat 3A and Flat 3B. No leakage was detected. (5) Water pipes leakage tests 34.The internal plumbing systems of Flat 3A and Flat 3B were tested. Sections of the pipes were isolated and pressure was exerted into the section. A decrease in pressure would indicate leakage. No leakage was detected in Flat 3B. As to Flat 3A, leakage was detected in the hot water system, but not the cold water system. 35.The joint expert concluded that the main cause of water leakage was from the front and rear podium, kitchen and bath room of Flat 3A. The defective hot water pipe work in Flat 3A was not the main cause of the water leakage, but only an aggravating factor, as demonstrated by the serious dampness behind the bathroom. He explained that it was only an aggravating factor because the hot water system would only be used intermittently, and there would not be enough hot water emitted to cause the extensive leakage. 36.Between the 1st Report and the Revised Report, further tests were conducted to the water pipes supplying the other units passing through the ceiling of 2/F at the suggestion of the expert for the 1st and 2nd defendants. The only problem was condensation on the surface of the portable water supply pipes. The joint expert concluded that was an intermittent phenomenon and the amount of moisture generated was unlikely to be an attribute to the water leakage. Causes of the water leakage 37.The Consent Order stipulated that the findings of the expert is binding on the parties, without prejudice to their contention and submissions on liability. It is common ground between the parties that the expert’s opinions are the only expert evidence in the case, and are prima facie binding, subject to the rejection by the court insofar as they are not supported by facts or reason. 38.In the 1st Report, the seepage in Room 1 after the flooding of the front and rear podium of Flat 3B were omitted due to mixing up of the thermo-scans by the contractor. The Revised Report has rectified that upon suggestion of the solicitors for the 1st and 2nd defendants. 39.Mr. Cheung for the 1st and 2nd defendants cross-examined the joint expert on the time gap between the two flooding tests on the same day. Mr. Cheung queried whether the result of the first flooding would only be detected after the second scanning. 40.Mr. Cheung submitted that the test result of 20 January 2005 at 4:30 pm was contaminated by the earlier test at 2 pm. Earlier that day, the front and rear podium of Flat 3B were flooded and scanning at 2 pm was negative. Then the kitchen and bathroom of Flat 3A were flooded and scanning at 4:30 pm showed marks in Room 2 underneath the glass house and near the lift shafts. Mr. Cheung said that water needs time to travel. Judging from the distance between the Flat 3A kitchen and bathroom and the water marks, it would suggest the water marks might be left behind from the flooding test of the Flat 3B front and rear podium. 41.The joint expert said that the time gap between the first and second flooding test on the same day was sufficient, and it is the same duration adopted by the government departments in such tests. There is no need to wait for full penetration of water through the concrete slab. The thermo-scan would detect areas of drop in temperature as indicating sites of water seepage. Further, as the ceiling was thermo-scanned as control before each flooding, the result was obtained by comparison of the subsequent thermographs with the control. That would exclude the mixing of the result of a previous flooding test with the later. 42.Mr. Cheung also cross-examined the joint expert on why only the ceiling adjacent to the periphery of the external walls was scanned to detect spots of seepages at the spraying tests. The joint expert explained that from experience, seepages from external walls would only affect the areas adjacent to the periphery of the external walls, because water came into contact with the external wall vertically or at a slight angle, and most of the water would travel on the surface of the external wall due to the force of gravity. Hence, the impact of water entering horizontally into the ceiling slap would be smaller. 43.Mr. Cheung also cross-examined as to whether some thermo-scans taken on 25 January 2005 related to the result of spraying tests on 24 January 2005. The joint expert said no and in fact the water marks in the thermo-scans on 25 January 2005 were results of the flooding test few days ago. 44.The joint expert has answered every query by the 1st and 2nd defendants. I see no difficulty in accepting his opinion. 45.The joint expert said that the normal useful life of the water proofing membrane is 10 to 15 years. The water proofing membrane on the 3/F has never been renewed. I note that as at early 2002, the building has been in occupation for about 15 years. In the normal course of event, failure of the water proofing membrane is not unexpected. 46.I accept the causes of the water leakages from Flat 3A, and to a limited extent from Flat 3B as stated in the Revised Report. Rentability of 2/F 47.There are two sub-issues as to the rentability of 2/F:
48.The plaintiff’s case is that the water leakage at the centre part of the ceiling of Room 2 affected the rentability of 2/F. 49.Mr. Cheng Ying Yim of the plaintiff said that in May 2002, there was serious water leakage affecting the decoration work and rentability of 2/F. Both the reports of Miller International for the plaintiff and Ms. Emilie Hui for the 1st and 2nd defendants in June 2002 supported the claim of leakage in the ceiling of Room 2. The problem was continuing as at the date of the site visit. 50.Mr. Cheung submitted that the extent of damage observed by Miller International on 15 June 2002 was not extensive. Be that as it may, at the joint inspection on 14 June 2002, Ms. Emilie Hui found that water was dripping. At that stage, she attributed it to the fire services pipes. The joint expert did not find the pipes to be the cause of water leakage. He said the condensation of the portable pipes was unlikely to be a cause of water leakage. Hence, the water dripping must be attributable to the causes found by the joint expert. 51.I accept the evidence of Mr. Cheng that the water leakage has generally affected the rentability of 2/F as from June 2002. 52.The defendants submitted that in any event, the market was sluggish, and 2/F could not be rented out. I think it is a far cry to say that in 2002, even without any water leakage, there was no market for 2/F at all. I would have thought it is a matter of the asking rent. As the issue of quantum was severed, the experts on valuation and market rent were not called. Hence, sub-issue (2) will not be dealt with now but deferred to the assessment of damages. Liability of the 1st and 2nd defendants 53.The duty is on the plaintiff to show that the defendants have been negligent in causing and/or suffering the water leakage problem. 54.The joint expert attributed the water leakage mainly to the centre part of Room 2 to the podium, kitchen and bathroom of Flat 3A. The cause was failure of the water proofing membrane. 55.Mr. Cheung accepted that he could not really dispute that water leakage came from Flat 3A. However, the 1st and 2nd defendants should not be blamed because there was neither misfeasance not nonfeasance. They did not alter any structure nor damaged the water proofing membrane. The did not fail to do anything that a reasonable man would have done. The 1st and 2nd defendants thought that as the water proofing membrane was a single sheet, and fair wear and tear would occur equally to the entire membrane, remedial work required the concerted efforts of the 3rd defendant. The 1st and 2nd defendants blamed the 3rd defendant for non-cooperation. 56.The tests prescribed by the joint expert have clearly separated sources of leakage from Flat 3A and 3B. The fact that the water proofing membrane is one sheet or that the course of water seepage is erratic does not affect those results. Miss Kitty Wong alleged that Mr. Tommy Fung, Chartered Building Surveyor originally retained by the 1st and 2nd defendants as expert witness, had told her that the water proofing membrane was one piece and remedial work had to be done with Flat 3B, but she accepted in cross-examination that Mr. Fung never advised her so. 57.Miss Kitty Wong also alleged that the 3rd defendant could not be contacted to discuss the problem. But it is contrary to the fact that the 3rd defendant’s representatives were present at the joint inspections in June 2002, and soon thereafter, the 1st and 2nd defendants denied liability and told the plaintiff to have recourse to the Incorporated Owners. There did not seem to be any initiative for concerted effort from the 1st and 2nd defendants. 58.It is only common sense that the water proofing membrane is subject to wear and tear and will not last forever. It is the duty of the owner of the flat roof or podium to ensure that the water proofing membrane is reasonably and sufficiently maintained so that there is no leakage to the floor underneath. Even if there were not any occasion for an inspection to see if renewal or reinforcement is required, complaint of water leakage from the downstairs neighbour certainly would be a signal to do so. Here, the 1st and 2nd defendants had already been advised by their architect to conduct a flooding test to the flat roof, but only the glass house was flooded. They then wrote to the plaintiff indicated that tests according to the report of the architect has been done for 10 days, and the cause of water leakage had nothing to do with Flat 3A. They further relied on the drainage test by F&EHD to deny liability, notwithstanding F&EHD stated the cause could not be found out within their means. I find that the 1st and 2nd defendants have delayed the process of detecting and remedying the water leakage problem. 59.The attitude of Miss Kitty Wong can be further demonstrated by these examples. 60.On 23 October 2002, solicitors for the plaintiff wrote back to the solicitors for the 1st and 2nd defendants stating that leakage of pigmented water was found at an inspection after the water tests by Miss Wong were conducted. Under cross-examination, Miss Wong was asked how she responded to it. Miss Wong said since the letter did not state what the pigment was, she could not be sure whether that related to the pigmented water test carried out by her. It is noted that the colour water test by the F&EHD was only carried out in December 2002. Miss Wong’s attitude can only be described as uncooperative. 61.Another incident was that on 15 and 17 February 2005, the joint expert issued the invoices for his service. By 21 March 2005, the other parties except the 1st and 2nd defendants have settled the fees. On 11 April 2005, the 1st and 2nd defendants partially settled the fees and raised queries on the 1st report. On 18 April 2005, the joint expert requested payment of the balance and further fees for dealing with the queries. Payment was only made on 8 July 2005. An explanation was that the 1st defendant has just passed away. However, Miss Wong accepted that was not really an excuse. 62.I find that the 1st and 2nd defendants are liable to the plaintiff for water leakage from Flat 3A. I also find that the uncooperative attitude of the 1st and 2nd defendants were the cause of the delay in remedying the water leakage. 63.The issue of liability can be divided into sub-heads:
64.As to loss of rental income, as I have mentioned, the plaintiff’s case is that the water leakage from the centre part of the ceiling of Room 2 affected the rentability of 2/F. Mr. Au for the 3rd defendant submitted that the water leakage in Room 1 did not affect rentability. Likewise, Mr. Cheung submitted that water leakage in the corner of the toilet in Room 3 did not affect rentability. Indeed, I do find that only the more serious water leakage in the centre of Room 2 affected the rentability of 2/F. Hence, the 1st and 2nd defendants are solely responsible for the loss of rental income (to be assessed, if any). 65.As to damage to the ceiling of 2/F, it is neatly delineated into Room1, Room 2 and Room 3, with the damage in Room 3 being jointly contributed to by the leakage from Flat 3A and the external wall. 66.It is evident that the 1st and 2nd defendants should bear the repair costs of the ceiling of Room 2. 67.As to Room 3, both the external wall and Flat 3A have contributed to the same spot of damage on the ceiling. Mr. Mak is not making any claim for the damage caused by seepage from the external wall. I think it is fair that the plaintiff and the 1st and 2nd defendants should share the repair cost equally. 68.As to renewal of the water proofing membrane of Flat 3A as recommended by the joint expert, the 1st and 2nd defendants should bear the cost, as well as such costs of the recommended remedial work as touching and concerning Flat 3A. Liability of the 3rd defendant 69.I find that the 3rd defendant is liable for water leakage to Room 1 by reason of his failure to sufficiently maintain the water proofing membrane of the podium of Flat 3B. 70.By reason of the matter stated above, I do not find the 3rd defendant liable for any loss of rental income. 71.Mr. Au accepted that the 3rd defendant should bear the cost of repair of the ceiling of Room 1. 72.As to the renewal of the water proofing membrane, although probably only the rear podium was leaking, the joint expert recommended the renewal of the entire flat roof, based on caution and conservatism. I agree. At any rate, based on fair wear and tear, it is likely that the time for the water proofing membrane for the entire Flat 3B is almost up. The 3rd defendant should also bear such costs of the recommended remedial work as touching and concerning Flat 3B. Quantum 73.I shall adjourn the assessment of damages before a master of the High Court. Costs 74.I shall make a separate order nisi that the 1st and 2nd defendants do pay 90% of the costs of the action up to the trial (excluding the costs of the joint expert) to the plaintiff, and the 3rd defendant do pay 10% of such costs to the plaintiff. 75.As to the costs of the joint expert, I shall apportion them according to the recommended remedial work. I shall make an order nisi that the plaintiff, 1st and 2nd defendants, and the 3rd defendant shall bear the costs of the joint expert in the ratio of 1:5:4. 76.Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the abundant good sense of Mr. Mak, Mr. Cheung and Mr. Au in the conduct of the case.
Mr. Andrew Y.S. Mak, inst’d by M/s Kenneth C.C. Man for Plaintiff. Mr. Anthony P.W. Cheung, inst’d by M/s Winnie Lo & Wong for the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Mr. Thomas Au, inst’d by M/s Joseph Chu, Lo & Lau for the 3rd Defendant. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case