Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Alternative accommodation

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

CHOW KWOK WING, suing by his lawful attorney CHOW CHAK TONG AND OTHERS v. YEUNG OI LING

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2205
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2720/2024

The Court accepted the plaintiffs' credible oral evidence and the detailed expert surveyor report, rejected unsupported accusations by the defendant, and held that the specified heads of loss flowed directly and foreseeably from the defendant's water seepage; the Court allowed the assessed sums for each head, awarded interest from the date of writ until judgment at HSBC best lending rate plus 1% and made a costs order nisi.
18 Jul 2024

LEE LING LING LILIAN v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF WONG SIU YING ANNE, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1152
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3611/2020

The court accepted the plaintiff's uncontested evidence and the Joint Office nuisance notice identifying the defendant's bathroom as the source of the seepage; excluded an expert report for lack of leave; assessed recoverable heads by reference to documented quotations and reasonable estimates: repair costs awarded on the produced contractor quotation, cleaning and electrician accepted as reasonable, hotel accommodation awarded based on contemporaneous online rate produced, and a conventional sum awarded for prolonged non-pecuniary harm. Therefore damages for nuisance were awarded to the plai…
5 Jul 2024

LEE WAI FUN IDA v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF VIRTUE VILLA

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1088
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1569/2020

The court applied nuisance and statutory principles to assess damages down to date of assessment, accepted the plaintiff's expert evidence and contractor quotations as to necessity and reasonableness, and held the plaintiff entitled to pecuniary reinstatement costs, waterproofing costs, consequential relocation/storage expenses and non‑pecuniary damages for inconvenience, awarding specified sums and ordering payment with interest and costs.
22 Dec 2020

CHAN ALBERT KOON KEUNG AND OTHERS v. YEE YUN TUNG

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1201
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3071/2017

Plaintiffs' unchallenged and credible evidence, including expert reports, established that the water seepage originated from the Defendant's premises and caused damage; accordingly the court awarded plaintiffs damages for remedial works, removal works, temporary accommodation, storage and general damages totalling HK$381,630, with interest and costs as ordered.
23 Apr 2020

LAI CHI WAI v. TONG HUNG KWOK AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 628
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1235/2014

Both the 1st and 2nd defendants were liable in negligence for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff; the plaintiff was contributorily negligent (25%) and damages were reduced accordingly; an exoskeleton was held to be a reasonably necessary and recoverable rehabilitation aid and its cost (with scheduled replacements) was awarded; quantum of other heads (PSLA, special damages, loss of earnings, alternative accommodation) assessed as set out in the reasons.
3 May 2019

NG TAT KUEN v. TAM CHE FU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI896/2013

Judge accepted plaintiff's evidence, adopted agreed multipliers from the Chan Tables, awarded items of special and future damages largely as claimed or as agreed with the 4th defendant, applied rental-differential method for alternative accommodation (median rent $15,000) rather than purchase/Roberts v Johnstone approach given facts and agreed position, and entered final judgment against the 1st and 2nd defendants for $10,587,000 net of employees' compensation and inclusive of interest, with specific costs orders.
7 Mar 2012

LAU YUET MING v. HUNG LING KWOK AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU YUET MING v. HUNG LING KWOK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI300/2011

Leave to adduce valuation expert evidence by a surveyor is refused because readily available, up-to-date property data from reputable websites and Land Registry transaction records provide sufficient factual evidence to assess reasonable costs of suitable alternative accommodation in this personal injury case; public housing accessibility and allocation are factual matters for HKHA and not for a surveyor; rehabilitation experts adequately address home modification needs; valuation opinion is unnecessary, disproportionate and not of sufficient probative value for the interlocutory issue.
13 Jun 2002

TSOI YAU YA v. CHAN KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSOI YAU YA v. CHAN KWOK HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1388/1999

Court found the 1st defendant not credible on key points and that a reasonably cautious bus driver should have been doing 10–15 kph in the congested bus lane; the 1st defendant was driving at about 20–30 kph, failed to slow sufficiently after claiming priority and was negligent; 2nd defendant vicariously liable; plaintiff held 30% contributorily negligent; damages assessed and adjusted accordingly (net award of HKD 2,980,867), interest and costs ordered as specified.
28 Jun 2001

LAM MEI YING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM MEI YING v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3214/2001

The Court exercised its discretion to extend time for serving the notice of appeal to 4:00 p.m. on 29 June 2001 because the proposed appeal disclosed real merit, the alleged nondisclosure was not shown to be sufficiently material in the circumstances (including the Authority's indication that alternative accommodation would be provided), and no prejudice to respondents was demonstrated.
21 Dec 1981

LAM CHEUNG KAM v. CHEUNG CHUN TAK

Citation

LAM CHEUNG KAM v. CHEUNG CHUN TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV93/1981

The Court allowed the appeal because the trial judge, despite stating the correct test, misapplied it by over-weighing delay, landlord's past conduct and relative hardship; on the evidence the tenant had not established on the balance of probabilities that making an order for possession would be manifestly unjust or inequitable, and therefore the order for possession in favour of the landlord should be granted.