Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Water leakage

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

LAI TUN YU AND ANOTHER v. NG HUNG MING as the EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAU YING HING, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2132
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ270/2022

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted that dyed ponding and moisture measurements demonstrated leakage from the 3/F Unit floor slab (bathroom/kitchen) to the 2/F Unit as of 19 September 2023, but the 2nd Defendant did not have actual or constructive knowledge after she became registered owner and acted reasonably in relying on JO investigations and cooperating with inspections; therefore she was not liable for continued leakage post‑purchase and the Plaintiffs' claim against her was dismissed.
31 Jul 2025

GOLDEN KEY INDUSTRIAL LTD 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAH CHUN INDUSTRIAL CENTRE及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 37
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM125/2022

Tribunal refused permission to appeal and stay because the proposed grounds mainly re-argued factual findings and new factual points not raised at trial; no arguable legal error was shown on core issues including scope of injunction and causation; the injunction as framed was proportionate to remedy proven defects; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no basis to stay execution; costs of the summons were awarded against the first respondent (HKD 80,000).
29 May 2025

FU SAU TAI, RAYMOND v. WOO KWONG PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 904
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5546/2020

Incidents 1 and 2 were resolved by settlement through the insurer leaving only the uninsured excess which the Plaintiff refused to accept; the Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Incident 3 or the later persistent seepage (Incidents 4–5 and thereafter) originated from Flat 410; contemporaneous Joint Office findings, multiple independent consultant reports and the defendant expert’s evidence pointing to ingress via defective external walls established that causation was not proved against the Defendants; accordingly the claim is dismissed and costs awarded to Defenda…
19 Mar 2025

LO WEI v. WISER (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 238
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP215/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds amounted to challenges to factual findings which were within the ambit of the trial judge's assessment of evidence and did not disclose any reasonable prospect of success; the judge's findings that the Plaintiff failed to prove the sources of the 2nd and 4th seepages and failed except in respect of the intervening period of the 3rd seepage were open on the evidence, including negative dye tests, expert joint inspection results and unreliability of microwave scans as applied in this case.
18 Mar 2025

KINGDOM POWER DEVELOPMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHEONG WAH BUILDING, TSUEN WAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2671/2017

The court exercised its case management powers to split the trial of the main action from the third party proceedings and ordered the main action to be tried first; it allowed specified Third Parties limited participation in the main action solely to contest whether the waterproofing layer is a common part; it varied earlier case directions (rescinded paragraph 13 of Master Hui's order) and issued specific timetabling and pleading directions to avoid prejudice and undue delay.
26 Feb 2025

SHU KA CHUEN及另一人對 CHAN KWONG WING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 153
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4335/2021

On the balance of probabilities the unchallenged expert evidence established that defective waterproofing in 7B's bathroom caused freshwater to penetrate the concrete and leak into 6B's ceiling; the defendant failed to rebut that evidence; accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction compelling repair and to damages (special damages HKD19,800 and general damages HKD120,000) plus interest and costs.
24 Dec 2024

YEUNG YI LAN v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KAM SHING BUILDING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2140
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4794/2021

On accepted unchallenged evidence the post-June 2021 rainwater seepage was caused by a defective waterproofing layer on the roof, which is a common part for which the Incorporated Owners are statutorily and contractually responsible; the IO failed to take reasonable steps to repair despite notice and is thus liable in negligence and nuisance and for breach of the DMC; mandatory injunctive relief was appropriate to compel repair within 90 days and damages were awarded for repair costs, temporary works and general damages for breach of the DMC.
20 Dec 2024

LAU KIN MAN EDWARD 對 TSOI TING CHU JOHN及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4874/2021

Plaintiff proved only the 2014 leakage incident attributable to 5G (supported by the nuisance notice), but defendants became aware then and undertook remediation within a reasonable time; moreover any claim in respect of the 2014 incident accrued no later than 4 December 2014 and is time‑barred under Limitation Ordinance s4(1); accordingly all claims dismissed and costs ordered against plaintiff.
18 Dec 2024

CHEN XIAO PEI v. WONG HOI KI

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2157
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4684/2024

On the pleaded facts, taken as admitted by the defendant's default, the plaintiff established breaches of the Deed of Mutual Covenant and/or statutory and tortious duties causing water damage; the court properly exercised its discretion under O 19 r 7 to enter judgment in default and to grant a mandatory injunction ordering the defendant to undertake rectification works within eight weeks; damages to be assessed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
6 Dec 2024

TOLLEMACHE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS v. RAYMOND LUN KWOK PAO also known as PAO LUN KWOK RAYMOND

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2026
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1322/2022

On the evidence the principal cause of the severe leakage was leaves blown onto and blocking roof drain holes during the exceptional Typhoon Vicente; the drain holes/pipework formed part of the common drainage system for which the manager had responsibility under the DMC; defendant did not have an affirmative duty to maintain the common drainage and, in any event, acted reasonably and promptly via domestic helpers once notified; evidence did not establish windows or external wall as substantial causes and plaintiffs failed to prove breach of duty, nuisance or negligence; claim dismissed.