23 Sept 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate any palpable error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal reasoning, advanced arguments not previously raised below without special circumstances or supporting record, and therefore had no reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2).
5 Feb 2025
Applicant proved on balance that A402 suffered persistent leakage from March 2021 and that the primary source was the defective external lightwell wall (a common part). The Incorporated Owners, having been notified and having received government reports, failed to take appropriate and timely steps to investigate and remedy the defect; therefore they breached their statutory duty under BMO s.18(1)(a) and are liable. A mandatory repair order and awards for reasonable repair costs and limited rental loss are appropriate.
2 Aug 2024
Leave to appeal was granted on two limited grounds where the Tribunal's written reasons may be inadequate (failure to explain rejection of the collateral damage claim and the specific finding recorded at paragraph 58). Other factual assessments (averaging repair quotes, 50% depreciation, quantum of general damages) did not disclose arguable legal error and were not granted leave; appellate interference requires irrationality, lack of evidence or misapplication of relevant considerations.
20 Dec 2023
Because liability had been finally determined and the defendant failed to comply with orders and file evidence, the court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and the uncontested expert report. The court awarded repair costs at the pleaded amount HK$72,174.22, relocation/accommodation costs pro rata for 14 days totalling HK$13,346.67 (calculated from plaintiff's chosen hotel rate), treated the surveyor's fee as recoverable as part of costs not damages, and awarded general damages for inconvenience and distress of HK$90,000; interest and costs were ordered as per the judgment.
12 Oct 2023
The Court refused leave because the applicants failed to identify any arguable legal error: the Tribunal's findings on liability and credibility were supported by evidence, its approach to damages (not deducting for increase in value absent expert evidence) was legally defensible, and the costs order fell within the Tribunal's discretion; therefore there is no proper basis for appellate intervention on facts.
2 Jun 2023
Claim dismissed because plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage to 14B was caused by the defendant's rooftop such that the defendant bore liability; joint expert evidence and ancillary reports were incomplete on key matters (notably the condition/ageing of the waterproof layer) and did not establish causation or defendant responsibility; although the court found defendant likely knew of and tacitly permitted the 2015 works, that did not establish liability for the alleged damage or entitlement to the claimed sums.
1 Mar 2023
On the balance of probabilities the external wall had defects which were at least one source of the applicant's internal wall water ingress; the incorporated owners, having been on notice and having had sufficient information and opportunity to investigate and to commission repairs, failed to take appropriate steps and therefore breached their statutory duty under s.18(1)(a) BMO; the applicant proved loss but not the full amount claimed, and a fair award for external and internal repairs and related measures was HKD 83,330.6 plus interest and costs.
7 Mar 2019
The plaintiff failed to show a high degree of assurance of success in respect of the specific relief sought for the 4A living room ceiling because the expert report did not exclude alternative sources (external wall) and there was no sufficient urgency (significant delay and report available well before application); damages are an adequate remedy; therefore the interim mandatory injunction was refused and the summons revoked with costs awarded to defendant.
17 Feb 2012
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any error of fact or a reasonable prospect of success: the source of ingress was not proven to be the external wall, the applicant refused access for inspection and expert testing thereby preventing proof of causation, the respondent had taken reasonable steps and complied with s18(1), and the proposed additional evidence/witnesses would not alter the outcome.