Lee Pak Shu and Others v. Ma Kam Ming Co Ltd

Case No.DCCJ 5312/2009
Court
District Court
Date23 Dec 2010
Judge
Case Document
100%

DCCJ 5312/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO.5312 OF 2009

______

BETWEEN

  LEE PAK SHU 1st Plaintiff
  YU YUNG HEUNG 2nd Plaintiff
  LEE SAI FAN 3rd Plaintiff

And

  MA KAM MING COMPANY LIMITED Defendant
______

Coram: Master B. Mak in Court

Date of Hearing: 22nd October 2010 and 16th December 2010

Date of Handing down of Judgment: 23rd December 2010

_______________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

_______________________________

Background

1.This is an assessment of damages of the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant.

2.Interlocutory Judgment was entered in default of Defence on 21st April 2010 with damages to be assessed.

3.At the hearings on 22nd October 2010 and 16th November 2010, the Defendant was absent.  I have read the 4th and 5th Affirmation of Ho Kwok Wing and am satisfied that due notice of hearing has been given to the Defendant.   Therefore, the Assessment of Damages was proceeded in the absence of the Defendant.

The Plaintiff’s case

4.The Plaintiffs are the registered co-owners of Flat 3, 13th Floor, Go Wah Mansion, 289 Lockhart Road, Wanchai, Hong Kong (“the said property”).

5.The Defendant is the registered owner of Flat 3 on 14th Floor of the same building.  In other words, the Defendant’s flat is immediately above the said property.

6.In or about the middle of 2009, water was seen leaking from the Defendant’s flat to the said property causing damage to the ceiling of the two bedrooms, living room, kitchen and toilet and also upper part of the walls.

7.After certain renovation was done to the Defendant’s flat, the water leakage stopped since the middle of September 2009.

8.On the 3rd August 2009, the Plaintiffs asked one Sunshine Decor Ltd to give a quotation on the repair works that have to be done in order to repair the damage caused by the water leakage.  The works include spalling, repainting, replacement of electrical wiring, switches and sockets.  It would take 30 days for the works to be completed. During that period, the Plaintiffs’ are required to move out of the said property. The costs of the said works is in the sum of $75,265.

9.The Plaintiffs would require an alternative accommodation during the period of the repair.  Two rooms would be required.   The 3rd  Plaintiff has asked the room rates of 4 hotels in Wanchai area, namely, The Charter House, Novotel Hotel, Walden Hotel and Metro Park Hotel.  Their respective rates are as follows :-

  Hotel Rate (per room per day)  
  The Charter House $750 + 10%  
  Novotel Hotel  $1,550 + 10%  
  Walden Hotel  $1,063  
  Metro Park Hotel $1,172 + 10%  

The cheapest rate is that of The Charter House. i.e. $825 per room per day ($750 + $75).  The total cost of alternative accommodation is therefore $49,500 ($825 x 2 rooms x 30 days).

10.The Plaintiffs have asked one Crown Relocations to give a quotation of moving the furniture and personal effects into a storage, the storage charge for one month and moving back to the said property.  The cost of such service is in the sum of $16,050 plus insurance.  The 3rd Plaintiff opted for a basic insurance coverage of 1.5% (as opposed to a comprehensive coverage of 2.5%) of the total value of the properties which he assessed at the sum of $150,000. The total cost of relocation and storage is therefore $18,300 ($16,050 + $2,250).

11.The 3rd Plaintiff said that his father (i.e. 1st Plaintiff) was diagnosed to have terminal cancer at the end of August 2009. The family has to look after the 1st Plaintiff and does not want to disturb him, therefore, the Plaintiffs have not yet carried out the repair works.  The 3rd Plaintiff said the repair works will be carried out eventually.

Findings

12.I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs have suffered loss as a result of the water leakage from the defendant's flat.  The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the following damages from the Defendant:-

  (a) Repair works $ 75,265  
  (b) Alternative accommodation $ 49,500  
  (c) Relocation and storage $ 18,300  
  Total:    $143,065  

Interest

13.The Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said sum of $143,065 at judgment rate from the date of Writ to the date of Interlocutory Judgment and thereafter at Judgment rate until payment.

Costs

14.The Defendant should bear the costs of the Assessment of Damages.

15.By summary assessment, I order that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff costs of this action including costs of the Assessment of Damages in the sum of $38,000, to be paid by the Defendant forthwith.

  (Signed)
B. Mak
  Master

Mr. Paul Kwong of Messrs. Paul Kwong & Co. for the Plaintiffs

Defendant: absent