Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Water damage

  • 19 Dec 2017

    PUTAI LTD v. YAU LEE HO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    PUTAI LTD v. YAU LEE HO AND ANOTHER
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2666/2013

    On the balance of probabilities the backflow was caused by a towel blocking the external drainage pipe; that blockage was an accident and there was no evidence of improper appointment or negligence by the Owners Incorporation, so the third party is not liable; the waste water back-flowed via the water closet in Flat 2B through a non-waterproof floor slab into Flat 1B causing seepage and damage, and the defendants breached the DMC, statutory duties and committed nuisance and negligence; plaintiff entitled to damages of $64,900 plus interest and costs as ordered.

  • 17 Nov 2017

    YEUNG CHIU WING AND ANOTHER v. HO CHI MING

    Citation
    YEUNG CHIU WING AND ANOTHER v. HO CHI MING
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3244/2015

    The court preferred the plaintiffs' expert evidence and the 2015 Joint Office positive dye results, found the source of seepage to be defective waterproofing of the defendant's balcony and related dirty-water drains, found the defendant had knowledge and failed to take reasonable remedial steps, and held the defendant liable in negligence, for permitting a nuisance and for breach of DMC clause 3(a); awarded damages, interest, a mandatory injunction and costs.

  • 26 Mar 2010

    WING HON PRECISION INDUSTRY LTD v. MAK CHI KIN

    Citation
    WING HON PRECISION INDUSTRY LTD v. MAK CHI KIN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3896/2008

    The court accepted the Plaintiff's witness evidence and expert report as establishing that water flowed from the Defendant's premises causing damage; reasonable repair and replacement costs were assessed at $126,071.20, loss adjusters' fees of $12,300.00 were allowed, and accordingly the Defendant was ordered to pay $138,371.20 with interest and costs, the assessment proceeding being validly conducted in the Defendant's absence after substituted service was proved.

  • 6 Sept 2005

    ETERNAL ADVANCE LTD v. LI TSZ WAI t/a PURPLE HOUSE

    Citation
    ETERNAL ADVANCE LTD v. LI TSZ WAI t/a PURPLE HOUSE
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2057/2004

    On the balance of probabilities the Court accepted the expert evidence and photographic evidence that a burst 4/8" PVC flush water pipe in the Defendant's cockloft caused water to run down the same wall into the Plaintiff's Basement and that the damage to that pipe was most likely caused negligently by the contractor or his workers during renovation; accordingly judgment for the Plaintiff for the claimed repairs was entered.

  • 9 Oct 1995

    BORN CHIEF CO. LTD. t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. GEORGE TSAI and Another

    Citation
    BORN CHIEF CO. LTD. t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. GEORGE TSAI and Another
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA781/1992

    On the facts the defendants owed a duty of care and breached it by permitting rainwater to accumulate and flow through a known hole and an opening at floor level; the resulting seepage into the plaintiff's premises was a foreseeable and direct cause of the loss, therefore liability for the damage is established and damages are to be assessed by a Master.