CHAN KWOK ON, PETER AND ANOTHER v. ROGER THOMAS AND OTHERS

CHAN KWOK ON, PETER AND ANOTHER v. ROGER THOMAS AND OTHERS

The 1st defendant's placement of a grille in the inter‑catchpit tunnel was an act of potential nuisance that foreseeably and in practice inevitably obstructed the shared drainage channel and caused the flooding; contributory negligence was not established; there was no evidence the 2nd or 3rd defendants knew of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHAN KWOK ON, PETER AND ANOTHER v. ROGER THOMAS AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chan Kwok On, Peter; 2nd Plaintiff: Silver Trend Company Limited; 1st Defendant: Roger Thomas; 2nd Defendant: Ha Mong Estates Limited; 3rd Defendant: The Great Eagle Properties Management Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 1984
Case Number
HCA10237/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Action (private Nuisance) Action No. 10237 of 1983 / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant; claims against 2nd and 3rd defendants dismissed
Legal Topics
Private Nuisance, Proprietary Easements, Contributory Negligence, Management Duties Under Deed of Mutual Covenant, Damages
Source Language
en
Tort Nuisance Negligence Property Law Private Nuisance Proprietary Easements Contributory Negligence Management Duties Under Deed of Mutual Covenant +1 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Kwok On, Peter

1st Plaintiff

Silver Trend Company Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Roger Thomas

1st Defendant

Ha Mong Estates Limited

2nd Defendant

The Great Eagle Properties Management Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort Action (private Nuisance) Action No. 10237 of 1983 / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether erection of a grille by 1st defendant on drainage channel constituted an actionable private nuisance
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs contributed to their loss by negligence
  3. 3 Whether 2nd and 3rd defendants (owner and managers) are liable for the grille and pipe

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant's placement of a grille in the inter‑catchpit tunnel was an act of potential nuisance that foreseeably and in practice inevitably obstructed the shared drainage channel and caused the flooding; contributory negligence was not established; there was no evidence the 2nd or 3rd defendants knew of the offending installations, so they were not liable and the managers' exclusion clause was not engaged on the facts.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant; claims against 2nd and 3rd defendants dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant for nominal damages of HKD 50 in respect of the rain‑water pipe
  • Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant for damages for flooding of 8 April 1983 to be agreed and, in default of agreement, to be assessed by a Master