CHAN HO YIN v. LI KWOK SHING TRADING as L S DESIGN AND CONSULTANTS

DCCJ 6310/2024

[2026] HKDC 1316

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 6310 OF 2024

--------------------------------

BETWEEN

--------------------------------

--------------------------------------------

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

--------------------------------------------

A. Introduction

1.  This is an assessment of damages.

2.  The Plaintiff (“P”) entered an interlocutory judgment against the Defendant (“D”) on 30 June 2025 upon the Defendant’s failure to file and serve its defence pursuant to Master Chow’s order dated 9 April 2025. The matter was set down for assessment of damages.

3.  P has provided two affirmations of service. I am satisfied that D has been duly notified of today’s hearing. I shall proceed in D’s absence pursuant to O. 35, r. 1 of the Rules of the District Court, Cap 336H.

B. P’s Claim

4.  P’s underlying claim concerns the breach of a renovation contract dated 19 June 2024 (the “Renovation Contract”) under which D would renovate P’s property (the “Property”).

5.  P submits that pursuant to the Renovation Contract:-

(a) D had to complete the renovation works within 90 days;

(b) D had an implied obligation to carry out the works with reasonable care, skill, and diligence pursuant to ss 5 and 6 of the Supply or Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance, Cap 457.

6.  P claims that D failed to complete on time, and substantial parts of the renovation works were defective and/or incomplete. D repudiated the Renovation Contract by abandoning the renovation project, and returned the Property’s keys on 4 October 2024.

7.  P had obtained leave of the court to engage an expert (a Mr. Chau Kam Kwan (“Mr. Chau”) of Hong Kong Building Inspection Limited) to assess the extent of defective and incomplete works. Mr. Chau rendered his expert report on 14 November 2024.

8.  P quantifies his loss and damage by reference to his own evidence and Mr. Chau’s expert report as follows:-

(a) Costs of rectifying the Property – HK$98,200;

(b) Costs of repairing the flat below the property due to water seepage – HK$4,000;

(c) Fees for obtaining an expert report – HK$13,800;

(d) Loss of enjoyment of the Property – HK$52,442; and

(e) Damages for inconvenience and discomfort – HK$70,000

C. Analysis

C1. Costs of rectifying the Property

9.  P incurred actual rectification costs of HK$98,200 by hiring a replacement contractor. P and the replacement contractor entered into contracts dated 7 October 2024 and 13 October 2024.

10.  P fairly conceded that a sum of HK$11,368 should be deducted as being additional value of D’s work and other additional work (as assessed by Mr. Chau).

11.  In this regard, Mr. Iverson Wong (P’s counsel) has confirmed that the rectification costs claimed are only limited to the items that D has not carried out properly (or at all) under the Renovation Contract and particularised in the Expert Report.

12.  I consider P’s contention is reasonable, and allow the same in full being HK$86,832 (HK$98,200 less HK$11,368).

C2. Costs of repairing the flat below the Property due to water seepage

13.  P claims D’s defective and negligent work caused water seepage and damaged the ceiling of the flat below the Property.

14.  P spent HK$4,000 to repair the damage that was made to the ceiling of the flat below. The scope of work has been set out in the 2^nd contractor’s contract dated 7 October 2024.

15.  The investigation report prepared by ISS Eastpoint Properties Limited dated 2 October 2024 appears to show water seepage into the flat below the Property. It also appears that water seepage was caused by issues to the Property’s waterproofing membrane as identified in Mr. Chau’s expert report.

16.  Standing back, P’s settlement with the owners of the flat below appears to be reasonable and fair. I allow the same in full.

C3. Fees for obtaining an expert report

17.  P claims for HK$13,800 for engaging Mr Chau. I accept that engaging Mr. Chau was a reasonable step to take. I allow the same in full.

C4. Loss of enjoyment of the Property

18.  P claims that the original completion date of the Renovation Contract should have been on 8 October 2024. D failed to complete the renovation works by that date. P had to engage a replacement contractor to carry out rectification/completion works. The rectification/completion works by the replacement contractor only finished on 2 January 2025.

19.  As such, P now claims loss of enjoyment of the Property from 9 October 2024 to 2 January 2025 for a total sum of HK$52,442.

20.  I consider that there may be overlap (and double-counting) between this head of damages and “Damages for inconvenience and discomfort” (see below).

21.  P has contended that “the objective value of being deprived of the use of the Property as a residential home” is not the same as “all sort [sic] of non-pecuniary losses caused by D’s breach”.

22.  Standing back, the substance of P’s complaint is that he could not use the Property. His loss of enjoyment is suffered alongside his inconvenience and discomfort. This is clear from P’s evidence in Court, and I also refer to paragraphs 21 to 24 of P’s Statement of Claim. Indeed, this situation is somewhat similar to Deputy Judge Yip’s observation in Crystal Bright Holdings Limited v Allen Industries Ltd DCCJ 2815/2015, (unrep. 05.06.2017) at §52 whereby the learned deputy judge noted “… I accept that P is entitled to award of general damages for inconvenience caused to P because of the loss of enjoyment of the Affected Area. ”

23.  I note that this is not a case whereby P is claiming loss of rental income (of the Property or his wife’s property): see Chan Yee Tak Rachel and Anor v DSM Interior Design Limited [2023] HKCFI 311 at §§33–35 (per Master Ho), or any out-of-pocket expenses.

24.  In any event, I observe there is insufficient evidence to show that the Property was inhabitable for all of the time during the rectification/completion works (especially near the tail end). I am not prepared to speculate without particularisation and/or proper evidence (including documentary evidence).

C5. Damages for inconvenience and discomfort

25.  P claims HK$70,000 for inconvenience and discomfort based on the following:-

(a) P’s relationship with the flat owner below the Property and the management office has been “damaged”;

(b) P and his wife had to live in the wife’s property as alternative accommodation “… which was less satisfactory and had a poorer living environment”;

(c) P had to spend substantial time and effort in dealing with the consequences of D’s breach. This includes arranging inspection, engaging the replacement contractor, dealing with the flat below, and pursuing these proceedings; and

(d) P suffered “pressure and distress from D’s abandonment of the works and the need to deal with all consequential works”.

26.  At the hearing, P supplemented the above by oral evidence as follows:

(a) First, he stated his daughter suffered from some skin and medical issues which is why they wanted to move into the renovated Property.

(b) Second, he stated D instigated various Small Claims Tribunal cases against him and his wife. But D did not pursue the same ultimately.

27.  There is no explanation why the matters in §26 were only supplemented by oral evidence. P was unable to provide any medical reports or documentary proof of his daughter’s condition. P also did not explain the nature or basis of D’s claims regarding the Small Claims Tribunal cases. He also did not provide any documentary proof thereof. In the premise, I give P’s new evidence minimal to no weight.

28.  I consider P’s evidence to be insufficient regarding how his relationship with the flat owner below and the management office has been damaged. There is no proper explanation of how P’s respective relationships have deteriorated, the extent of that deterioration, or its consequences.

29.  I accept, to some extent, the living conditions in P’s wife’s property is poorer. P has complained that his wife’s property is more damp and on a lower floor. I accept P spent time and effort, and suffered distress in dealing with the aftermath of D’s breach. Standing back and bearing in mind that there is no real formula of mathematical assessment, and to ensure that there is no double-counting (see Lau Ting Hang & Anor v Leung Chi Wing DCCJ 6539/2005 (unreported, 18/2/2008)), I consider that a sum of HK$38,000 is appropriate.

D. Costs

30.  P was unable to provide me with a statement of costs for summary assessment at the hearing. I had directed that P’s solicitors to provide me with a copy, which they have now done.

31.  I summarily assess the same at HK$82,000 having reviewed the same.

E. Conclusion

32.  In light of the above, I assess damages being HK$142,632 as follows:-

(a) Cost of rectification being HK$86,832;

(b) Settlement/repair of flat below the Property being HK$4,000;

(c) Cost of expert report being HK$13,800;

(d) Loss of enjoyment of property, inconvenience, and discomfort being HK$38,000.

33.  I would further award interest on the sum as pleaded in the Statement of Claim.

F. Disposition

34.  The Defendant do pay the Plaintiff HK$142,632, together with interests thereon at 1% above the HSBC best lending rate from date of writ (being 25 October 2024) to date hereof, and thereafter at judgment rate until full payment.

35.  The Defendant do pay the Plaintiff’s costs of this action, including this assessment of damages, summarily assessed at HK$82,000 on a nisi basis which shall become absolute in the absence of application to vary within 14 days hereof.