CHIU YU WUT AND ANOTHER v. CHIU PO WAI DOROTHY

DCCJ 2968/2024

[2026] HKDC 28

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2968 OF 2024

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

BETWEEN

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Introduction

1.  This is the hearing for assessment of damages of the Plaintiffs’ claim arising out of water seepage.

2.  The 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs are the sole registered title owner of Flat No.2 on 5^th Floor, Mei King Mansion Phase 1, No.2 Mei King Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“the Premises”).

3.  The Defendant is the sole registered title owner of Flat No.2 on 6^th Floor of the same building.

4.  On 5 September 2024, in the absence of any notice of intention to defend, the Plaintiffs obtained judgment against the Defendant, leaving damages to be assessed.

5.  In short, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant to have caused nuisance by wrongfully permitting water penetrating or seeping into the Premises. Further and/or alternatively, the Plaintiffs allege the Defendant to be negligent in failing to take adequate steps to prevent water seepage.

6.  The Plaintiffs now seeks damages for the following 2 categories of loss and damage: (i) rental loss, and (ii) costs of reinstatement and repair.

7.  At the hearing on 2 January 2026, the Defendant was absent. Having read the affirmation of service filed on 30 December 2025, this Court was satisfied that notice of assessment hearing had been duly given to the Defendant prior to the hearing. It was the Defendant’s election not to attend the assessment hearing. This Court proceeded with the assessment of damages in the absence of her.

The Plaintiffs’ case

8.  In May 2023, the Plaintiffs were informed by their tenant that there was water seepage and/or leakage from the Defendant’s unit. Water fell from the ceiling. This problem was found in the living room, corridor, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, air conditioners, and other places at the Premises. On 1 June 2023, the tenant told the Plaintiffs the water seepage continued and even caused the ceiling to have collapsed. As a result, the Plaintiffs and the tenant entered into a termination agreement whereby the tenant could leave with 1 month notice. A nuisance notice dated 27 November 2023 was issued to the Defendant’s unit by the Joint Office. On 5 January 2024, the Building Department issued an Order under rule 24(1) of the Buildings Ordinance against the Defendant requiring her to demolish the additional toilet, sink, and floor slab and to make restoration.

The Evidence

9.  In the present hearing, the Plaintiffs called 1 factual witness, namely the 1^st Plaintiff himself (“Mr Chiu”). Expert evidence from a surveyor Mr Fung Yik Chun (“Mr Fung”) is also adduced in the form of a report dated 22 September 2023. All of the above were not subject to any challenge from the Defendant who had adduced no documentary evidence and witness evidence for the purpose of assessment of damages and was absent during the hearing. I accept and find the evidence of witness straightforward, credible, and reliable.

Rental loss

10.  Rental loss is recoverable as a form of consequential loss, as the learned authors observed in McGregor on Damages, (22^nd Ed), at para 40-030.

11.  In the written opening submissions, the Plaintiffs sought recovery of loss of rents for the period from July 2023 to the handing down of this Assessment of Damages. The Premises was allegedly not being rented to anyone from 1 July 2023 to the present moment. This Court inquired about the legal and factual basis of claiming for such a period and pointed to the timing aspect as discussed in Dodd Properties (Kent) v. Canterbury City Council [1980] 1 WLR 433 and the said paragraph in McGregor on Damages above.

12.  Upon clarification by this Court, it is the Plaintiffs’ case that the Premises underwent repair and maintenance from 20 January 2024 to 4 May 2024. This Court noticed that the witness statement does not touch upon why the Premises remained not being rented for such a long time after 4 May 2024. Mr Chiu, when asked by this Court, testified that, while estate agents had explicitly relayed to potential tenants that work was already done to tackle the water seepage problems, some potential tenants simply found the Premises not nicely furnished (“裝修得唔夠靚”) or too old (“有人唔鐘意舊樓”).

13.  Having considered the termination agreement in Chinese, this Court accepted that the tenant found the Premises inhabitable and hence effectively terminated the lease on 1 July 2023. It is fair and just to adopt this date as the starting point to measure the loss. A reasonable cut-off date would be 4 May 2024 or a few months thereafter, as fairly conceded by Counsel for the Plaintiffs, in light of the concerns raised in the preceding paragraphs. There are no issues raised regarding not repairing the Premises in earliest possible moment to remedy damage caused by the wrongdoer and/or duty to mitigate loss.

14.  Having considered the magnitude and extent of water seepage as revealed in those photos taken at the Premises, analysis of Mr Fung, oral testimony of Mr Chiu, as well as the maintenance and repair work required, this Court found that rental loss only up to 30 June 2024 properly reflects the natural consequence of the wrongful act of the Defendant suffered by the Plaintiffs as economic loss. The amount of rent in the last tenancy, ie HK$10,000, would be adopted for the calculation of damages assessed.

15.  As such, the Plaintiffs are allowed to recover rental loss from the Defendant for the period starting from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2024 only (12 months in total) at the monthly rent of HK$10,000. As such, the award is HK$120,000.

Costs of repair and reinstatement

16.  Damages for costs of repair and reinstatement is recoverable for physical damage caused to the Premises by the water seepage, and so is the damages for the chattels damaged in addition, as the learned authors observed in McGregor on Damages (22^nd Ed), at para 40-019.

17.  Mr Fung opined that a qualified small contractor should be engaged to carry out re-plastering and re-painting in various places in the Premises. Electricity system and wiring should be repaired or reinstalled. Those damaged windows and air-conditioners should be removed and replaced. In addition, some subsequent removal of construction waste is also required. I find these logical and sensible.

18.  Having considered the assessment conducted by Mr Fung in relation to the problems identified, with sufficient breakdowns and details, this Court held that the assessed sum of HK$127,519 reasonable and will allow this sum to be fully recoverable from the Defendant.

Conclusion

19.  The Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendant the following:

Rental loss	HK$120,000.00
Costs of repair and reinstatement	HK$127,519.00
TOTAL:	HK$247,519.00

20.  I order that the Defendant do pay the sum of HK$247,519.00 to the Plaintiffs with interest on the said sum at the best lending rate of HSBC plus 1% from the date of Writ, i.e. 3 June 2024 to the date of the judgment and thereafter at judgment rate to the date of full payment.

21.  Costs should follow the event in the present case.  I make an order nisi for the Defendant to pay the Plaintiffs’ costs (including all costs reserved and the surveyor’s fee at HK$14,000), summarily assessed at HK$151,550.  Unless any party applies to vary the costs order nisi within 14 days hereof, the costs order shall become an absolute order.