LAM WOON CHEONG STEVEN v. LOOI CHI YIU SUNNY

DCCJ 871/2025

[2026] HKDC 222

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 871 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  Before this action was transferred from the High Court to the District Court, the parties obtained an order by consent dated 25 July 2024 for the appointment of a single joint expert on liability and quantum.

2.  The single joint expert report was submitted on 3 October 2024.  By a summons dated 29 May 2025, the Plaintiff sought leave for him to appoint another expert to give evidence on quantum and for that expert to prepare a joint report on quantum together with the current single joint expert.

3.  Master KW Yan dismissed the Plaintiff’s summons on 3 September 2025, but provided the parties with liberty to apply to the Court for the filing of a supplemental report by the current single joint expert and for cross examination of him at the trial. This is my decision of the Plaintiff’s appeal against Master KW Yan’s order. 

Background

4.  The Plaintiff’s claim, as pleaded in the Statement of Claim, can be summarised as follows:-

(1)  The Plaintiff resides in House 59 of Marina Cove, whereas the Defendant resides in House 58.  House 58 is located directly next to and is adjoining House 59.

(2)  In or around mid-August 2022, the Defendant commenced extensive demolition and renovation works to House 58, including demolition of the walls inside House 58.

(3)  The demolition works created strong vibrations and massive shockwaves which caused damages to House 59.  For example, some articles in House 59 fell off the shelves and broke, the wall bordering the level 2 kitchen door frame cracked, and there were cracks on a large number of walls and ceilings.  The cracks in the ceiling outside the level 4 bedrooms also led to water leakage.

(4)  The Plaintiff claims costs of repairs of $646,020, relocation costs and insurance of $123,903, storage costs and insurance of $154,464 and damages for distress of $60,000.

5.  The Plaintiff commenced proceedings in the High Court in HCA 1629/2023.  In his timetabling questionnaire, he indicated that he intended to adduce Dr Eddie Lam’s expert evidence on both liability and quantum.  In his case management summons, he also sought leave for him to appoint Dr Lam as his expert.

6.  The Defendant agreed to the nomination of Dr Lam, and the parties filed a consent summons dated 11 July 2024 for the appointment of Dr Lam as a single joint expert.  By way of a consent order dated 25 July 2024, Master Kot granted leave to the parties to adduce expert evidence, and paragraphs 1 and 2 of that order provided as follows:-

“1. Leave for the parties to jointly appoint Dr. Lam Shiu Shu Eddie, chartered engineer (“Dr. Eddie Lam”)  to be the single joint expert of this case and adduce expert evidence on liability and quantum in relation to the following issues:-

(a)  Whether there has been the following damages in the Plaintiff's property:-

(i)  The wall bordering the Level 2 kitchen door-frame was cracked and apparently shifted, resulting in bending and shifting of the door-frame from its original position, causing the door now being unable to close; and

(ii)  Numerous cracks of variable length were incurred on a large number (over 10 in number)  of walls and ceilings including tiled surfaces and floors of House 59, including extensive dislodgement and cracking of floor tiles at the main roof.

(b)  In addition, whether there has been signs of water seepage related to the damages affecting ceilings or walls at the Plaintiff's property;

(c)  For (a)  and (b)  above, what is the possible cause or causes(s)  of the appearance of (a)  and (b); and

(d)  What are the reasonable costs of repair to such damages caused to the Plaintiff’s property.

2. The parties arrange inspection of respective premises and complete tests necessary for the expert report on or before 30 August 2024.  If specialist contractor’s service is necessary for performance of tests as advised by Dr. Eddie Lam, they shall be jointly engaged by the parties.”

7.  Dr Lam submitted his singe joint expert report on 3 October 2024.  Insofar as quantum is concerned, Dr Lam opined that there were five main items of repairs (namely general repairs, main roof, the 1/F, kitchen, and walls and ceilings), and he estimated the total costs of repairs to be $260,361.20.

8.  Noting the magnitude of the Plaintiff’s pleaded claim and Dr Lam’s opinion on quantum, Master Maurice Lam invited submissions from the parties as to why the case should remain in the High Court.  Subsequently, on 17 December 2024, the learned Master ordered that this action be transferred to the District Court.  The Defendant then admitted liability and interlocutory judgment on liability was entered against him by Madam Registrar M Soong’s order dated 4 June 2025.

Rationale of the Plaintiff’s Application

9.  Upon receiving Dr Lam’s report, the Plaintiff has through his solicitors’ letter dated 18 November 2024 proposed to the Defendant that clarifications be sought from Dr Lam and that leave be sought from the Court for Dr Lam to file a supplemental report. 

10.  In response, the Defendant has through his solicitors’ letter dated 20 November 2024 agreed that certain clarifications should be sought from Dr Lam.  Seeing no response from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s solicitors issued another letter dated 2 December 2024 urging the Plaintiff to confirm whether the proposed revisions to the questions to be put to Dr Lam were agreeable.

11.  The Plaintiff then made a sudden turn.  On 10 December 2024, he through his solicitors questioned Dr Lam’s qualifications to be a quantum expert and indicated that he had engaged a quantity surveyor to provide opinion on the costs of repair work required.  On 13 December 2024, the Defendant’s solicitors replied that the intended application to adduce another expert report from a quantity surveyor would be opposed.

12.  Be that as it may, the Plaintiff proceeded to engage Mr Wong Koon Kau, a chartered quantity surveyor, to prepare a report which was made available on or around 27 March 2025.  On 3 April 2025, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant’s consent to file Mr Wong’s report, and this request was denied by the Defendant.

13.  This led to the Plaintiff taking out the subject summons dated 29 May 2025, where he sought leave for him to appoint Mr Wong as his expert on quantum.  The Plaintiff also sought leave for Mr Wong to provide his expert report to Dr Lam, and then for the two of them to prepare a joint expert report on quantum.

14.  It can be seen from the affirmation filed on behalf of the Plaintiff that he relied on the following reasons for taking out the summons:-

(1)  There were a few factual errors in Dr Lam’s report, including the alleged failure to take into account all areas of damages.

(2)  Unlike his detailed and well-reasoned analysis of the cause of water seepage in House 59, Dr Lam’s opinion on quantum was brief and was merely a one-page table.

(3)  The figures adopted by Dr Lam were far lower than the quotations obtained from contractors, and Dr Lam offered no explanations as to how he arrived at his figures.

Relevant Principles

15.  As Recorder Lisa Wong SC (as the Honourable Madam Justice Wong then was)  stated in Daimler AG v Leiduck [2014] 3 HKLRD 56 at §§32-36:-

(1)  The appointment of a single joint expert, whether by agreement between the parties or imposed by the Court, does not per se bar a party from seeking leave to instruct its own expert to challenge the single joint expert’s evidence or aspects thereof.

(2)  Leave should and would be granted if, upon balancing all relevant considerations, it is just and accords with the underlying objectives of the Civil Justice Reform to do so.

(3)  The Court may take into account the following non-exhaustive factors:-

(a)  the nature of the dispute;

(b)  the number of disputes on which the expert evidence is relevant;

(c)  the reason for requiring the second report;

(d)  the amount at stake or the nature of the issues at stake;

(e)  the effect of permitting a second expert report on the conduct of the trial;

(f)  the delay in making the application;

(g)  the delay that might be caused in the conduct of the proceedings;

(h)  any other special features;

(i)  the overall justice to the parties.

(4)  With regard to the reason for requiring own-party expert evidence, additional expert evidence may be permitted where the dissatisfied party’s reasons for wishing to adduce such evidence are not fanciful. 

Analysis

16.  Mr Vincent Chiu, counsel for the Plaintiff, has expanded upon the rationale for the Plaintiff’s application and he has put forward five reasons in support:-

(1)  The quantum evidence from Dr Lam is unsatisfactory, in that in the report there are omissions of technical steps, relevant basic facts and defects.

(2)  The Defendant has indicated agreement to clarify the expert evidence on quantum.

(3)  Mr Wong’s expertise as a quantity surveyor would be valuable.

(4)  The proposed expert evidence would go to a central issue in dispute, namely the quantum of damages payable by the Defendant.

(5)  The proceedings would not be seriously delayed by the proposed expert evidence.

17.  Mr Chiu argued that when Dr Lam commented on the works required to fix the cracks and delamination, he only considered it necessary to carry out general repairs, grouting of cracks and preparation of surface and paintwork.  On the other hand, Dr Lam did not take into account the requisite technical steps of hammer tapping to identify any bulged, loose, honeycombed and spalling concrete, which Mr Wong considered necessary.  Furthermore, Dr Lam apparently overlooked the need for such works as the incidental works affected by re-roofing, incidental electrical and plumbing works, condition survey of the premises and the adjacent buildings, and sterilization.

18.  It appears to me that Dr Lam is entitled to his view as to whether the suggested hammer tapping step is so indispensable that it must be budgeted in his estimate.  In any event, it is not clear if Dr Lam has indeed subsumed the costs of such preparatory steps into the items of work listed in his table.  Clarifications from Dr Lam would be sufficient.  As to the other purportedly omitted items, again there is no reason why Dr Lam cannot be asked to clarify if he has taken them into account, and if not, to explain his reasons.

19.  It was then argued on behalf of the Plaintiff that Dr Lam omitted the basic fact that there was internal elevation within House 59 such that vertical transportation costs should be included, and that costs for scaffolding work and working platform should be provided.  House 59 is obviously a house as opposed to an apartment, and this much is clear from the photos attached to Dr Lam’s report.  I consider it far-fetched to suggest that Dr Lam somehow omitted to take into account such basic features of House 59.  In any event, Dr Lam can be requested to clarify if he has indeed omitted to provide for such costs, or if those costs have already been subsumed under those items of work in his table.

20.  Similarly, the Plaintiff’s criticisms that a number of defects in House 59 had been omitted from Dr Lam’s report (such as the cracks on the external wall, bathroom wall, courtyard wall, various ceilings, delamination in various locations, and damaged floorings)  can be addressed by seeking clarifications from Dr Lam. None of the criticisms made against Dr Lam’s report is so fundamental that it cannot be remedied by a supplemental report from Dr Lam and by the parties’ seeking leave to cross examine Dr Lam at the trial, which was precisely the course suggested by Master KW Yan.

21.  The Plaintiff then prayed reliance on the fact that the Defendant himself had agreed to seek clarifications from Dr Lam.  This is neither here nor there.  That the Defendant reasonably acceded to the Plaintiff’s suggestion of asking Dr Lam to prepare a supplemental report does not mean the Defendant should be taken to have agreed that the Plaintiff may adduce a report from another expert.  In fact, the Defendant made it clear that he would object to that intended application of the Plaintiff.  

22.  The Plaintiff also submitted that Mr Wong, being a quantity surveyor, possessed different expertise to that of Dr Lam who was a structural engineer.  That is certainly true, but there is no evidence before me to suggest that a structural engineer is somehow not well-equipped to give expert evidence on the quantum of repair works.  As a matter of fact, it was the Plaintiff who first proposed nominating Dr Lam to be his expert on both liability and quantum.  In any event, as I have set out above, paragraph 2 of Master Kot’s order expressly permits Dr Lam to engage specialist contractor’s services if it is necessary.  If Dr Lam requires the inputs from a quantity surveyor, he is able to do so. 

23.  As to the argument that the expert evidence from Mr Wong would be central to the issue in dispute, the same can be said of Dr Lam’s evidence.  With Dr Lam’s evidence on quantum in place, there is no need to engage another quantum expert in order for the Court to resolve the central issue of the damages payable by the Defendant.

24.  I am aware that no trial date has been fixed, such that the conduct of this case would not be seriously disrupted if I am to give leave to the Plaintiff to adduce Mr Wong’s report.  Nevertheless, had it not been the Plaintiff’s application and had the Plaintiff agreed to simply seek clarifications from Dr Lam, by the time of the hearing before Madam Registrar M Soong on 4 June 2025, the usual directions for the exchange of witness statements could have been made and the case could have been set down for trial at the last Case Management Summons hearing.

25.  Having taken into account the aforesaid factors, I consider that the Court’s case management discretion does not lie in favour of granting the Plaintiff’s application and allowing his appeal.

Conclusion

26.  The Plaintiff’s appeal made in his notice of appeal dated 16 September 2025 is dismissed.  I make an order nisi that costs be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.