Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Building management ordinance s.34h

  • 30 Nov 2023

    TOP VICTORY (ASIA) LTD v. KONG SHUI SUN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 1697
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3967/2018

    Defendants were put on notice of the source of seepage when they received the plaintiff's investigation report on 16 May 2018; they unreasonably delayed (including by bringing misconceived Lands Tribunal proceedings) and only acted nearly 11 months later; that delay made further harm foreseeable and amounted to negligence and nuisance and breach of the DMC; plaintiff proved loss and mitigation was adequate; therefore defendants liable and plaintiff entitled to damages of HK$1,459,800 plus interest and costs.

  • 8 Jul 2022

    CHOY SHOK CHUN v. YU HON KEUNG

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 671
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5575/2019

    Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the seepage came from the defendant's 6/F property. Repeated negative dye tests, the seasonal pattern of seepage inconsistent with continuous use of the 6/F bathroom, lack of convincing evidential link via Room A or slab thickness, and unresolved alternative explanations (external wall or higher floors) combined to defeat the plaintiff's case; both experts' competing opinions were not accepted as proving causation.

  • 16 Jan 2014

    MAK WAI YIM AND ANOTHER v. TAM SIU LING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    MAK WAI YIM AND ANOTHER v. TAM SIU LING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1428/2012

    The court accepted the ponding test evidence (appearance of fluorescent yellow-green dye observed by QTC technicians and confirmed by plaintiffs' expert Mr Wong on 7 February 2013) as proving Unit 2A was the source of water seepage to Room 1D; there was insufficient evidence to show Unit 2A caused seepage to Room 1C; accordingly defendants liable for damage to Room 1D only and plaintiffs awarded damages, while injunction was refused because seepage had stopped and a lapse of time without recurrence made injunctive relief inappropriate.

  • 26 Jun 2003

    WONG KAN TAI v. MAN KAU KAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    WONG KAN TAI v. MAN KAU KAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ14290/2000

    Defendants were liable because they had exclusive use and control of the relevant flat roof under the DMC and, under s.34H Building Management Ordinance, were responsible to keep it in good repair; unchallenged survey evidence showed the roof and hopper gaps were dilapidated and permitted waste water to seep through causing damage to the Plaintiff's premises, and Defendants failed to take adequate precautions; Plaintiff as a reversioner could seek an injunction and special damages though general damages for discomfort were denied.