Joybase Corporation Ltd v. Li Kai Fai

DCCJ 3016/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 3016 OF 2011

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is the application by the defendant for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

2.The defence counsel submits that the evidence of the plaintiff’s expert is speculative evidence.  This is reflected in paragraphs 4 to 6, 9 to 12 of the Judgment.  I have carefully considered all these paragraphs.  I do not accept for one moment that the plaintiff’s expert, Mr Kung, has given speculative evidence. 

3.The defence counsel also submits that this court did not consider the possibility of leakage from the neighbouring unit of the defendant’s unit.  The defence statement of the defendant does not refer to any possibility of leakage of water from the neighbouring unit of the defendant’s unit.  This is also not referred to in the defendant’s witness, Mr Li’s witness statement and there is no evidence leading to such possibility. 

4.The defence counsel says that the plaintiff has placed the burden on the defendant in respect of this matter.  This is not correct.  I cannot see any reasonable possibility of the defendant succeeding in the Court of Appeal if I grant leave to him to appeal against my decision.  Therefore I dismiss this application for leave.

5.The defendant do pay costs to the plaintiff for this application to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.

Mr Kenny CP Lin, instructed by Lo, Wong & Tsui, for the plaintiff

Mr C Y Liu, instructed by Tso & Associates, for the defendant