TSE LAI YIN LILY AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS

TSE LAI YIN LILY AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS

The canopy over Sai On Street was a common part of Albert House; its collapse was caused by overloading (screeding, fish tank, sign) coupled with long‑term lack of maintenance leading to severe corrosion of reinforcement, with demolition hammering as the trigger; the incorporated owners (1st), the management company (2nd), the tenant/restaurant parties (3rd and 4th) and the landlord (5th) each breached duties of care in negligence and nuisance and are liable; apportionment of blame: 3rd+4th 50%, 1st 15%, 2nd 15%, 5th 15%, 6th 5%.

Citation
TSE LAI YIN LILY AND OTHERS v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ALBERT HOUSE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: LILY TSE LAI YIN; 2nd Plaintiff: TSUI HO; 3rd Plaintiff: NG PAK MUI; 4th Plaintiff: TSUI WAI NGON (by her father and next friend TSUI SIU ON); 5th Plaintiff: CHAN MIN WAH; 6th Plaintiff: LEUNG PUI YING (by her father and next friend LEUNG TAI FUK); 7th Plaintiff (personal Representative): TSUI SAI NUI (Personal Representative of MO YEE, deceased); 8th Plaintiff: HO SHIU TAK (by his father and next friend HO TUNG SHING); 1st Defendant: The Incorporated Owners of Albert House; 2nd Defendant: Housing Management Agency Limited; 3rd Defendant: Ho Wing Hang; 4th Defendant: New Best Restaurant Limited (in liquidation); 5th Defendant: Aberdeen Winner Investment Company Limited; 6th Defendant: 6th Defendant (contractor)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 1999
Case Number
HCPI828/1997
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries / Liability Trial — Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for all plaintiffs on liability against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants (interlocutory judgment previously entered against 6th defendant)
Legal Topics
Canopy Collapse, Common Parts Under Building Management Ordinance, Duty to Maintain Common Parts, Occupier/occupational Control, Apportionment of Liability, Breach of Statutory Duty
Source Language
EN
Tort Negligence Nuisance Property Law Building/construction Regulation Canopy Collapse Common Parts Under Building Management Ordinance Duty to Maintain Common Parts +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LILY TSE LAI YIN

1st Plaintiff

TSUI HO

2nd Plaintiff

NG PAK MUI

3rd Plaintiff

TSUI WAI NGON (by her father and next friend TSUI SIU ON)

4th Plaintiff

CHAN MIN WAH

5th Plaintiff

LEUNG PUI YING (by her father and next friend LEUNG TAI FUK)

6th Plaintiff

TSUI SAI NUI (Personal Representative of MO YEE, deceased)

7th Plaintiff (personal Representative)

HO SHIU TAK (by his father and next friend HO TUNG SHING)

8th Plaintiff

The Incorporated Owners of Albert House

1st Defendant

Housing Management Agency Limited

2nd Defendant

Ho Wing Hang

3rd Defendant

New Best Restaurant Limited (in liquidation)

4th Defendant

Aberdeen Winner Investment Company Limited

5th Defendant

6th Defendant (contractor)

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries / Liability Trial — Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What caused the canopy collapse?
  2. 2 Whether the canopy formed part of the common parts of the building
  3. 3 Whether each defendant owed and breached a duty to maintain the canopy

Ratio Decidendi

The canopy over Sai On Street was a common part of Albert House; its collapse was caused by overloading (screeding, fish tank, sign) coupled with long‑term lack of maintenance leading to severe corrosion of reinforcement, with demolition hammering as the trigger; the incorporated owners (1st), the management company (2nd), the tenant/restaurant parties (3rd and 4th) and the landlord (5th) each breached duties of care in negligence and nuisance and are liable; apportionment of blame: 3rd+4th 50%, 1st 15%, 2nd 15%, 5th 15%, 6th 5%.

Court Disposition

Judgment for all plaintiffs on liability against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants (interlocutory judgment previously entered against 6th defendant)

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants on liability
  • Liability apportioned: 3rd and 4th defendants together 50%; 1st defendant 15%; 2nd defendant 15%; 5th defendant 15%; 6th defendant 5%