GET BILLION DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHEN CHEN ENG AND ANOTHER

GET BILLION DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHEN CHEN ENG AND ANOTHER

Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that water leakage occurred from 12/F to 11/F on the balance of probabilities; the Single Joint Experts' 2017 investigation was more comprehensive and reliable than the dated 2010 DCL proforma report, and no evidence supported ongoing leakage from 12/F, therefore the application was dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.

Citation
[2018] HKLdT 81
Parties
Applicant: GET BILLION DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 1st Respondent: CHEN CHEN ENG; 2nd Respondent: COSMIC GUEST HOUSE (HK) LIMITED
Court
Lands Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
LDBM40/2016
Procedural Posture
Building Management Application (ldbm 40/2016) / Final Judgment at Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Water Leakage Disputes, Injunctions, Damages, Breach of Deed of Covenant, Section 34 H Building Management Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Building Management Property Law Tort (nuisance and Negligence) Civil Procedure Water Leakage Disputes Injunctions Damages Breach of Deed of Covenant +1 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GET BILLION DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Applicant

CHEN CHEN ENG

1st Respondent

COSMIC GUEST HOUSE (HK) LIMITED

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Building Management Application (ldbm 40/2016) / Final Judgment at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether water leakage occurred at 11/F Flat in or around 2010 and continued
  2. 2 Whether the source of leakage was 12/F Flat
  3. 3 Whether respondents were liable in nuisance, negligence, breach of Deed of Covenant and/or breach of s.34H BMO

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof that water leakage occurred from 12/F to 11/F on the balance of probabilities; the Single Joint Experts' 2017 investigation was more comprehensive and reliable than the dated 2010 DCL proforma report, and no evidence supported ongoing leakage from 12/F, therefore the application was dismissed and costs awarded to respondents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Order nisi that the applicant do pay costs of the application (including all costs reserved) to the respondents with certificate for counsel on the District Court Scale, to be taxed if not agreed
  • Order nisi to become absolute unless an application is made to vary within 14 days