TSE CHIT SANG AND ANOTHER v. HO MEI LING AND ANOTHER

TSE CHIT SANG AND ANOTHER v. HO MEI LING AND ANOTHER

The court found the Defendants unreasonably refused the Manager (acting as Plaintiffs' agent) repeated requests to enter 27B between January and late April/early May 2005, thereby breaching clause 6(b)(v) of the DMC; the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the 27B master bathroom waterproofing was defective because a court-ordered flooding test produced negative results and was accepted as reliable; accordingly Plaintiffs succeed on breach of DMC for unreasonable refusal of entry but fail on proof of defective waterproofing; damages awarded were nominal HK$100 for repair (not proved) and HK$15,000 for inconvenience, with interest and costs to be argued.

Citation
TSE CHIT SANG AND ANOTHER v. HO MEI LING AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TSE CHIT SANG; 2nd Plaintiff: LAI YUET SHIU PATSYAND; 1st Defendant: HO MEI LING; 2nd Defendant: LUK YUEN MUI
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 June 2009
Case Number
DCCJ2404/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiffs in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Covenant, Negligence, Nuisance, Water Leakage, Damages, Injunctive Relief (abandoned)
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Property Building Management Breach of Covenant Negligence Nuisance Water Leakage +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSE CHIT SANG

1st Plaintiff

LAI YUET SHIU PATSYAND

2nd Plaintiff

HO MEI LING

1st Defendant

LUK YUEN MUI

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants breached clause 6(b)(v) of the Deed of Mutual Covenant by unreasonably refusing entry to investigate a public flushing pipe leak
  2. 2 Whether the waterproofing of 27B master bathroom was defective and caused the leakage
  3. 3 If defective, whether Defendants are liable in breach of DMC, negligence and/or nuisance

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Defendants unreasonably refused the Manager (acting as Plaintiffs' agent) repeated requests to enter 27B between January and late April/early May 2005, thereby breaching clause 6(b)(v) of the DMC; the Plaintiffs failed to prove that the 27B master bathroom waterproofing was defective because a court-ordered flooding test produced negative results and was accepted as reliable; accordingly Plaintiffs succeed on breach of DMC for unreasonable refusal of entry but fail on proof of defective waterproofing; damages awarded were nominal HK$100 for repair (not proved) and HK$15,000 for inconvenience, with interest and costs to be argued.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiffs in part

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiffs in HK$100.00 nominal damages (repair)
  • Judgment for the Plaintiffs in HK$15,000.00 damages for inconvenience