29 Apr 2026
Leave to appeal granted only on Ground 10 (foreseeability/remoteness of loss of rental income) because that ground has a reasonable prospect of success; all other grounds were refused because the judge found they lacked reasonable prospects, were covered by pleadings or supported by evidence and expert findings, or involved factual conclusions not plainly wrong.
28 Apr 2026
On the evidence the court inferred that seepage at least partly originated from Flat 5E: abatement of seepage when flushwater supply to Flat 5E was suspended, high chloride content and dye (fluorescein) observed on plaintiff's ceiling and expert findings established a causal link to Flat 5E's flushwater/floor drainage; the defendant knew or ought to have known and failed to take reasonable steps to repair; therefore defendant liable in nuisance and negligence and injunctive relief and damages were appropriate.
17 Apr 2026
Where a defendant in a water seepage nuisance/negligence claim defaulted, the court may assess damages; inspection fees, reasonable repair/reinstatement costs and consequential loss of rent are recoverable when supported by evidence and shown to be necessary and reasonable; on the facts the claimed amounts (HK$8,600; HK$52,300; HK$17,700) were proven and allowed in full, with interest and assessed costs awarded.
2 Apr 2026
Default judgment on liability granted on the basis of the pleaded Statement of Claim; damages are unliquidated and must be assessed, not awarded as a fixed sum based on estimates; mandatory injunction refused because the proposed order was too vague and delegated remedial scope to plaintiff's Authorized Person, failing the required precision for a mandatory injunction.
20 Mar 2026
Defendants were duly served and defaulted; evidence including expert report established that leakage originated from defendants' premises and constituted a nuisance/breach of statutory and contractual duties; therefore interlocutory judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff, damages to be assessed, and a mandatory injunction ordering defendants to effect necessary remedial works within a court-fixed timeframe was appropriate, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
4 Mar 2026
The judge refused the Plaintiff's applications because the remedial works had been completed, the Plaintiff had knowledge of the works' scope and delayed taking steps, there was no evidence of continuing seepage so further expert investigation would be speculative and impose unjustified costs, and therefore the January 2025 Summons was spent, amendment was refused and costs were awarded to the Defendant (summarily assessed at HK$80,000).
27 Feb 2026
The defendant had not complied with the Default Judgment Order and water seepage persisted, creating a safety risk; accordingly, under Order 45 r8 RDC the court granted the plaintiff leave to enter the defendant's property to carry out remedial works at the defendant's cost, ordered payment of the plaintiff's costs on demand, endorsed a penal notice and summarily assessed costs at HK$50,000.
10 Feb 2026
The court granted access because the plaintiff's provisional expert reports provided a prima facie basis to include Kam Tong Building as a possible source of seepage; the relief sought was limited to access for testing, not determination of liability or expert methodology, and therefore access was appropriate while leaving choice of experts and testing methodology to the parties; costs orders were made to require the plaintiff to bear defendants' reasonable costs of compliance and indemnity costs to D1 and D2 of HK$35,000.
7 Jan 2026
On the balance of probabilities the single joint expert established that seepage originated from an illegal small fresh water tank and defective waterproofing beneath the plaintiff's private main roof (and earlier from FSS tank), the IO was aware of complaints from 2015 and failed to take reasonable and timely remedial steps, thereby breaching s18(1) BMO and common law nuisance; plaintiff entitled to damages and a mandatory injunction to compel repairs.
31 Dec 2025
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.