黃錦賢 對 蕭玉良及另一人

DCCJ 5107/2017

[2025] HKDC 292

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事訴訟2017年第5107號

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

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

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

判案書

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

A.  背景

1.  原告人自1978年l月l日起獲得香港政府發出許可證居住於新界屯門嘉和里村10 號搭建構築物（該「10號屋」）作住宅用途。

2.  第二被告人是屯門嘉和里村16號屋（該「16號屋」）的住戶，而第一被告人是受聘於第二被告人該為16號屋進行工程的承判商。

3.  該10號屋與該16號屋互為毗鄰，共用間隔牆身。

4.  在2014年11月20日，當第一被告人為第二被告人在該16號屋進行工程時，大量水泥及石屎灌進該10號屋內（該「該意外」）。

5.  該意外導致：

(1)  該10號屋與該16號屋毗鄰的一幅間隔牆穿了一個大洞，約1.5米乘1.5米；

(2)  大量水泥及石屎灌進該10號屋內；

(3)  該10號屋屋項歪斜及鬆散，部份天花墜落；及

(4)  該10號屋內傢俬電器損毁。

6.  根據區域法院司法常務官雷健文於2021年9月17日頒下的判決，就本案的損害賠償責任問題，原告人可取得簡易判決之勝訴令，賠償數目留待評定。

7.  本審訊為本案的損害賠償的評估。

B.  有爭議的議題

8.  根據《申索陳述書》，原告人因該意外向第一及第二被告人（「被告人等」）申索如下：

(1)  685,000港元為維修該10號屋的費用；及

(2)  51,600港元為該10號屋內家具及電器的損毁索償。

9.  根據第一被告人的抗辯書，第一被告人表示原告人“白白失去了即時處理減低損失的最好時機”，並認為賠償金額應為16,000港元（即12,000港元加4,000港元）。

10.  第二被告人並沒有在他的抗辯書中列出他認為合適的賠償金額。

11.  因此，法庭需要在此評核審訊中處理的唯一議題為：原告人因該意外應得的賠償金額為何？

C.  賠償金額

12.  根據《申索陳述書》，原告人的申索包括：

(1)  維修該10號屋的費用；及

(2)  該10號屋內家具及電器的損毁賠償。

C.1   維修該10號屋的範圍及費用

13.  維修該10號屋的範圍及費用，屬於專家意見的範疇。原告人的專家證人曾達名先生為一名建築測量師（「曾測量師」）。曾測量師為本案撰寫一份日期為2022年12月9日的專家證人報告（該「專家報告」）。

14.  基於以下的原因，本席信納曾測量師在該專家報告的專家意見。

15.  第一，在經過細心觀察及聆聽曾測量師在證人台上的口供，本席信納他是誠實可靠的證人。曾測量師的口供直截了當，在盤問下沒有動搖。無論如何，在盤問中，被告人等對曾測量師在該專家報告的專家意見並沒有提出有效的質疑。

16.  第二，根據區域法院聆案官翟國怡於2024年4月8日頒下的命令：

(1)  除非被告人等在28天內存檔及送達就原告人所需對構築物進行維修的維修費和被破壞的家具及電器的價值的專家證據，否則被告人等不得在本案的賠償數額評定聆訊中援引專家證據；及

(2)  除非被告人等28天內存檔及送達有關賠償數額方面的證人陳述書，否則被告人等不得在本案的賠償數額評定聆訊中援引任何證人證供。

  由於被告人等並沒有存檔及送達任何專家證據及證人陳述書，被告人等不得在本案傳召任何專家或事實方面的證人作供。故此，在本案中，被告人等並沒有專家意見反駁曾測量師的專家意見。

17.  第三，本席認為曾先生的專家意見是中肯和合理的。這從以下的事實可以印證，即原告人曾向美居建築裝飾工程（「美居」）索取維修該10號屋報價。根據美居日期為2017年7月16日的報價，維修該10號屋的費用為685,000港元。

18.  第四，原告人的索償及曾測量師的專業意見也附合以下的法律原則：‒

(1)  首先，Clerk & Lindsell on Torts, 24^th Ed, 第19-05及19-06段指出：‒

“A private nuisance[1] may be and usually is caused by a person doing, on his own land, something which he is lawfully entitled to do. His conduct only becomes a nuisance when the consequences of his act are not confined to his own land but extend to the land of his neighbour by:

(a) …

(b) causing physical damage to his neighbour's land or building or works or vegetation upon it; or

(c) …

[…] Nuisances of the second kind, causing physical damage to land or to something on it, occur when a man allows a drain on his own land to become blocked or makes a concrete paved drive so that the water overflows onto this neighbour’s land, […] allow buildings upon his land to become dilapidated so that they, or parts of them, fall upon his neighbour’s land […]” [強調後加]

(2)  其次，McGregor on Damages, 22^nd Ed, §40-012也指出：‒

“The difficulty in deciding between diminution in value and cost of reinstatement arises from the fact that the claimant may want their property in the same state as before the commission of the tort but the amount required to effect this may be substantially greater than the amount by which the value of the property has been diminished. The test which appears to be the appropriate one is the reasonableness of the claimant’s desire to reinstate the property; this will be judged in part by the advantages to them of reinstatement in relation to the extra cost to the defendant in having to pay damages for reinstatement rather than damages calculated by the diminution in value of the land.” [強調後加]

本席認為在本案中，原告人以維修該10號屋的損壞作為索償的基礎，是為合理。

19.  第五，在本席前，沒有任何證據顯示原告人沒有採取一切合理的步驟減低損失（見British Westinghouse Electronic & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673，第689頁），而舉證的責任在被告人身上（見McGregor on Damages, §10-20）

20.  故此，本席信納曾測量師以下關於該10號屋需要維修的範圍的專家意見：‒

(1)  該10號屋並沒有鋼筋混凝土柱和橫樑。簡單來說，該10號屋的磚石牆就是該10號屋的承重物件；

(2)  該10號屋磚石牆已經變形，並有一個大洞。在這方面，相鄰磚石牆之間留下一大裂縫。除洞外，還有其他損壞，例如假天花板扭曲和倒塌、灰泥掉落、灰泥破裂、牆磚破裂和混凝土柱裂；

(3)  儘管金屬屋頂沒有明顯損壞，但由於磚石牆需要部分重建，因此有必要暫時支撐該10號屋的金屬屋頂。該10號屋基本設計資料欠奉。由於很難在支撐該10號屋的金屬屋頂時，假設或證明該10號屋的金屬屋頂是穩固及完整，因此重建部分該10號屋的金屬屋頂更合理和合乎經濟效益。

21.  此外，本席亦信納曾測量師關於維修該10號屋的費用（撇除傢俬）為440,000港元，詳情見附錄1。於此，本席亦考慮了雖然曾測量師的專業為建築測量，他亦是一個一般建築承建商(registered general building contractor)，因此，他能就維修該10號屋的費用提供合理估算。

C.2  該10 號屋內傢俬及電器的損毁賠償

22.  根據原告人的案情，就該10號屋內傢俬及電器的損毁，他向被告人等提出索償，詳情見附錄2。然而，雖然原告人在其證人陳述書第9段列出受損毀的傢俬及電器及其購買時的價錢，在盤問時，他很多時都只是以「不記得」來回答傢俬及電器是否有受到損壞。況且，原告人不能提供任何購買傢俬及電器的單據。在這情形下，本席認為不適合在這方面作出任何金錢的賠償。作出此判決時，本席參考及引用以下的案例：‒

(1)  在 ICI Swire Paints Limited v Techi Motor Engineering & Trading Company（未經彙編，HCA 7251/1995，2003年1月29日），袁國強暫委副司法常務官指出（第17及20段）：‒

“17. A party claiming damages has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, both the fact of damage and the amount. If the fact of damage is shown but no evidence is given as to its amount so that it is virtually impossible to assess damages, this will generally permit only an award of nominal damages. On the other hand, where it is clear that some substantial loss has been incurred, the fact that an assessment is difficult is no reason for awarding no damages or merely nominal damages. See: McGregor on Damages, 16^th edn, para 357 & 358, at p. 236; Chitty on Contracts, 28^th edn, Vol I, para 27-006, at p 1272; and Chaplin v Hicks [1911] 2 K B 786, per Vaughan Williams L J at p 792…

20. Where appropriate the court may adopt a broad brush approach when assessing damages. Kapan J observed in Green Island Cement Co Ltd v The Owners of ‘Sunshine Island’ & Anr, unrep, HCCL No 12 of 1998 (4^th June 1992) as follows:

The difficulty of assessment by a court of a company’s loss of profits varies enormously with the circumstances of the case. In this case it is not easy because there were a number of different factors at work of which it is necessary to take account. Fortunately the authorities make it clear that the court is not dealing with an exact science and that there is scope for taking a broad brush approach where necessary…”

(2)  在 Born Chief Co. (Trading as Beijing Restaurant) v George Tsai [1996] 2 HKLR 188，原審法官認為被告人需要對原告人物業所做成的損毀負上責任，並下令由聆案官評估損害賠償。然而，原告人的證人陳述書或證據中沒有任何賠償金額的證據。上訴後，上訴法院撤銷了評估損害賠償令，並代之以10港元的象徵性損害賠償令。上訴庭黎守律副庭長指出（在第195B-D頁）：‒

“Proceeding to the matter of damages, it is plain from the evidence, that there was significant physical damage. But of the quantum of damages, there was a conspicuous lack of actual evidence. The plaintiff did not apply for a split trial and so in the ordinary way the trial would be expected to proceed from start to finish. Counsel for the defendants rightly submitted that in the absence of evidence establishing the quantum of damages, the appropriate award was one of nominal damages. Such a result would obviously mean that the significant damage that the evidence revealed would not be compensated and must have offended the Judge’s sense of justice. But the good, efficient and increasingly, the affordable administration of justice requires that parties present their entire cases and cannot expect a second bite at the cherry simply because they failed to apply for a split trial or to produce their requisite evidence. The Judge was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand……”

(3)  在Liu Kwok Chuen v Liu Kwok Chun（未經彙編，DCMP 1905/2013, 2017年6月2日，區域法院暫委法官何世文（在第119-120段）表示：‒

“119. However, the defendant bears the burden to provide the necessary evidence to substantiate the alleged value of these items at the time of conversion (Clerk & Lindsell (21^st ed), para 17-94; see also: Chan Yin v Chan Yee Mai (DCCJ 8506 of 2001, 14 April 2002), at para 72). I accept Mr Lam’s submission that apart from the defendant’s bare allegations, there is really no objective evidence for this court to properly assess the values of these converted items. In fact, my observation on the absence of the necessary corroborating evidence on value of the goods and chattels here also apply to those items # (2), (5)-(8), (10)-(14) as discussed above.

120. In these circumstances, it would not be proper for this court to take the defendant’s allegations just on their face value. Especially, if the defendant is really serious in pursing his conversion claim, he could have gathered and produced corroborating documentary evidence such as price lists or quotations to show the value of the items allegedly converted. The defendant likewise adduced no evidence to inform this court for how long the air-conditioners, tyres, mattress in question have been purchased or otherwise acquired by him. There is also nothing here to suggest the defendant was in any way handicapped from providing aforesaid corroborating evidence or information owing to the conversion. In this light, any award of substantial damages for these converted items would be highly arbitrary and not in accordance with the principles for assessment of damages.”

D.  總結

23.  依照上述計算，原告人應得的補償額為440,000港元。

24.  故此，本席頒下以下命令：‒

(1)  第一及第二被告人須共同地及分別地（jointly and severally）支付原告人440,000港元及利息，利息從2017年11月16日[2]至法庭判決，以匯豐銀行最優惠利率+1厘計算，之後以判定利率計算至清繳為止；

(2)  第一及第二被告人需向原告人支付本案的訟費，連同大律師證書及所有保留的訟費（如有的話）。若雙方未能就金額達成協議，金額由法庭評定；及

(3)  原告人本身的訟費則根據《法律援助規例》評定。

25.  最後，本席感謝聶大律師對法庭的協助。

附錄1 – 維修該10號屋的範圍和費用

維修範圍	維修價錢（港元）
前期準備工作例如保險，保護和預防措施、碎片清理和清潔、監督、測試等等	65,000
該10 號屋內的工作平台或棚架	20,000
諮詢專業建築人士如註冊結構工程師	40,000
重建部分磚石牆	100,000
重建部分金屬屋頂	100,000
重建假天花板	20,000
新磚石牆抹上灰泥	36,000
修補其他灰泥缺陷	12,000
修補裂開牆磚	2,000
更換臥室門框和門扇	6,000
臥室、客廳、飯廳和正門的油漆工程	20,000
為陽台的金屬頂建造新柱並拆除破裂的柱	8,000
恢復臥室的懸掛物體	3,000
恢復風扇和光管照明，包括鋪設電路	8,000
合共：	440,000

附錄2 – 該10 號屋的傢俬 / 電器

傢俬/電器	購買價錢（港元）
電視櫃	6,000
餐枱	3,500
餐椅四張	1,500
儲物櫃	3,500
圓椅四張	300
搖搖椅	2,500
神枱	3,500
茶几	1,500
睡床	6,500
床褥	4,800
衣櫃	12,000
LG 電視	6,000
兩座位人做皮沙發	6,000
天花吊扇	500
固網電話	800
合共：	58,900