SO YIU WOON AND ANOTHER v. WONG DING HSIANG

SO YIU WOON AND ANOTHER v. WONG DING HSIANG

The Court refused leave to appeal because the defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law: the Presiding Officer lawfully re-considered and weighed competing expert and Joint Office evidence, complied with statutory investigatory duties, applied the correct approach to burden of proof, and made a reasonable assessment of damages. The application to amend the grounds was dismissed and no sustainable point of law was shown that would justify appellate intervention.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 2104
Parties
Claimant/respondent: So Yiu Woon; Claimant/respondent: Mak Shiu Kuen; Defendant/applicant: Wong Ding Hsiang
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 August 2020
Case Number
HCSA12/2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (point of Law)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for leave to amend the grounds dismissed; costs order nisi made
Legal Topics
Water Leakage, Expert Evidence, Presiding Officer Duty to Investigate, Leave to Appeal, Burden of Proof, Assessment of Damages
Source Language
EN
Nuisance Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Appeal Water Leakage Expert Evidence Presiding Officer Duty to Investigate +3 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

So Yiu Woon

Claimant/respondent

Mak Shiu Kuen

Claimant/respondent

Wong Ding Hsiang

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (point of Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Flat 13A was the source of water leakage causing nuisance to Flat 12A (liability)
  2. 2 Whether the presiding officer failed in his statutory duty to investigate relevant matters
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had actual or presumed knowledge of the source of nuisance

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused leave to appeal because the defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law: the Presiding Officer lawfully re-considered and weighed competing expert and Joint Office evidence, complied with statutory investigatory duties, applied the correct approach to burden of proof, and made a reasonable assessment of damages. The application to amend the grounds was dismissed and no sustainable point of law was shown that would justify appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; application for leave to amend the grounds dismissed; costs order nisi made

Orders

  • Leave to appeal dismissed
  • Application for leave to amend the Application dismissed