譚桂芳 對 陳婉施及另一人

譚桂芳 對 陳婉施及另一人

The tribunal's conclusions that the defendants' inlet pipe leaked and caused the claimant's damage were factual findings supported by credible management and objective evidence; no legal error or jurisdictional issue was demonstrated and the defendants offered only factual challenges, so there was no arguable point...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
譚桂芳 對 陳婉施及另一人
Parties
Claimant (respondent in Appeal): 譚桂芳; First Defendant (appellant): 陳婉施; Second Defendant (appellant): 陳欣施
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2017
Case Number
HCSA39/2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to Court of First Instance / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Water Leakage, Negligence, Breach of Deed of Mutual Covenant, Leave to Appeal, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
ch
Civil Property Tort Landlord and Tenant Procedure (small Claims) Water Leakage Negligence Breach of Deed of Mutual Covenant +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

譚桂芳

Claimant (respondent in Appeal)

陳婉施

First Defendant (appellant)

陳欣施

Second Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to Court of First Instance / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the source of leakage to the claimant's ceiling from May 1 to early July 2014 was the defendants' toilet cistern inlet pipe
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were legally liable for the leakage under the Deed of Mutual Covenant and in negligence
  3. 3 Quantum of damages recoverable by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's conclusions that the defendants' inlet pipe leaked and caused the claimant's damage were factual findings supported by credible management and objective evidence; no legal error or jurisdictional issue was demonstrated and the defendants offered only factual challenges, so there was no arguable point of law and leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused