LEE CHUI SHAN HAZEL, IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEE YEE MOW, THE DECEASED v. LUI HUNG FEI AND ANOTHER
Given effective service and unchallenged pleadings establishing liability in negligence/nuisance and breaches of the DMC and BMO, the court exercised its discretion to enter default judgment against both Defendants, ordered a mandatory injunction compelling the 2nd Defendant to abate the water seepage within 70 days...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] HKDC 1216
- Parties
- Plaintiff (in Her Personal Capacity and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Lee Yee Mow, Deceased): Lee Chui Shan Hazel; 1st Defendant: Lui Hung Fei; 2nd Defendant: Lui Hung Yuen
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 24 July 2025
- Case Number
- DCCJ2415/2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Action Water Seepage (negligence / Nuisance / Breach of DMC and Bmo) / Default Judgment Application Under Order 19 R 7 RDC (hearing and Adjourned Hearing)
- Outcome
- Default judgment entered against both Defendants; mandatory injunction granted against the 2nd Defendant to abate water seepage; Plaintiff's claim for damages to be assessed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
- Legal Topics
- Negligence, Nuisance, Injunctive Relief, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Building Management Ordinance
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lee Chui Shan Hazel
Plaintiff (in Her Personal Capacity and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Lee Yee Mow, Deceased)
Lui Hung Fei
1st Defendant
Lui Hung Yuen
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Water Seepage (negligence / Nuisance / Breach of DMC and Bmo) / Default Judgment Application Under Order 19 R 7 RDC (hearing and Adjourned Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether service on the Defendants was effective under Order 10 r 1(2)(b) RDC
- 2 Whether the Plaintiff's pleadings establish entitlement to judgment in default under Order 19 r 7 RDC
- 3 Whether injunctive relief (mandatory injunction to abate water seepage) is appropriate in default judgment
Ratio Decidendi
Given effective service and unchallenged pleadings establishing liability in negligence/nuisance and breaches of the DMC and BMO, the court exercised its discretion to enter default judgment against both Defendants, ordered a mandatory injunction compelling the 2nd Defendant to abate the water seepage within 70 days with specified remedial works certified by an independent authorised person, and ordered damages to be assessed and costs paid to the Plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Default judgment entered against both Defendants; mandatory injunction granted against the 2nd Defendant to abate water seepage; Plaintiff's claim for damages to be assessed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
Orders
- Judgment in default of defence to the Plaintiff's claim as stated in the Re-Amended Statement of Claim dated 22 April 2025 be entered against the Defendants
- The 2nd Defendant do, within 70 days from the date of service of the sealed order, remove all causes of the water seepage from Ds' Premises to P's Premises by replacing all defective water pipes (including drainage pipes) immediately above P's Premises with functional non-defective pipes and replacing inappropriate...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment