吳耀輝及另一人 訴 陳格平

DCCJ 4747/2006

香港特別行政區

區域法院

民事司法管轄權

案件編號2006年第4747號

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

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

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

判案書

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

1.  原告人爲香港新界元朗錦綉花園河北第一街19號（簡稱“原告物業”）之註冊業主，被告人為香港新界元朗錦綉花園河北第一街17號（簡稱“被告物業”）之註冊業主。原告物業與被告物業毗鄰，中間由一幅共用牆分開。

2.  本案緣起於有水從被告物業滲漏至原告物業。

3.  原告人的申索，是申請禁制令，要求被告人對被告物業進行維修工程，使其不再漏水，並禁止被告人容許水從被告物業滲漏至原告物業；及就其對原告人造成的不便及不舒適和其他損失作出賠償。

原告人之案情

4.  2006年1月起，由於被告人沒有對被告人之物業提供足夠的檢查、保養或維修，亦沒有採取任何足夠步驟或措施以防止滲水或漏水，以致有水自被告人之物業滲入原告人之物業，導致原告人之物業包括牆紙、電線、傢俬及地板等嚴重損壞。

被告人之案情

5.  被告人認爲，由於原告的裝修師傅在沒有獲得被告人授權的情況下進入被告物業，損壞被告物業屋頂的磚塊，方導致原告物業漏水。

6.  另外，原告的工人曾在共用牆的牆身高位距離屋頂約一米處打鑿牆身以埋設安裝壁燈，同時共用牆上亦有多個入牆電制插座。而據被告人的代表註冊結構工程師指出，一般預制件房屋常見有滲漏問題，主要原因是組件移位，組件結構受到損壞或強烈振盪而產生裂縫等，一般大廈公契或物業管理指引上都説明不能打鑿或損壞該等預制式組件。因此，被告人無須對原告物業漏水負責。

爭議事項

7.  本案最關鍵的爭議事項有三點：第一，原告物業之滲漏是否由被告物業之失修或破損而造成；第二，被告物業之失修或破損是否應該由被告負責；第三，原告是否應該得到如其申索之賠償、強制執行令和禁制令。

專家報告

8.  在2006年7月4日，在與訟雙方代表及其專家證人和裝修師傅均在場的情況下，在被告物業進行了灑水測試。其後，亦在原告物業進行了灑水測試。原告人的專家報告（2006年7月20日）指出：

“4.4   在兩家屋頂進行的灑水測試非常成功。測試結果顯示漏水的源頭是來自第17座（被告物業）的前方主要屋頂。實地觀察的結果有效地顯示第19座（原告物業）的屋頂保養整齊良好，有塗上新的防水層，亦通過了防水測試。相反，我們在第17座的屋頂發現有裂痕、破碎的水泥砂支持物和破瓦殘礫，以及沒有適當的防水層/處理。第17座的屋頂保養不善。

4.5  根據實地視察及灑水測試的結果，我們斷定第19座的漏水問題是第17座屋頂漏水所導致的。第17座的業主儘快在屋頂進行所需的維修工程。”（粗體、底綫及括號内容為本席所加）

9.  再者，被告人的專家報告（2006年12月27日）亦指出：

“Based on the test result, it is obvious that there is a leakage path connecting from the roof of House 17 （被告物業） near the party wall to the electric cable conduit embedded at the party wall at the side of House 19 （原告物業）. The water sprillage from the conduit at House 19 was unusual whilst no signs of water seepage are noted at other areas inside House 19.”（括號内容為本席所加）

10. 原告的專家證供－2006年7月4日之測試

於2006年7月4日，捷利行測量師有限公司的Albert Chan（原告的專家證人）視察原告物業，並作出了以下視察：

3.1     The site inspection was undertaken by Mr. Albert Chan of Dudley Surveyors Ltd on 4^th July 2006 accompanied by the owner of House No. 19, Mrs Ng. The weather condition was hot and sunny and the inspection was commenced at about 3:45p.m.

3.2     House No. 19 was occupied for domestic use during the time of our inspection. Within the unit, there was a Kitchen, a Guest Toilet and a Living & Dining Room on G/F. The Study Room and Bedrooms/Bathroom were located on 1/F with access linked by an interior staircase. There was an open Garden to the rear of House No. 19.

3.3     Photo 1 showed the interior of the Study Room on 1/F which had been affected most by the water leakage problem. Construction-wise, there was a party wall in the Study Room (Arrow pointing in Photo 1) and the position of it in relation to the adjacent House No. 17 could be identified more clearly in Photo 8.

3.4     It could be observed that within the Study Room, the wallpaper peeled off from the party wall due to the moist substrate. Under the working table, there was a plastic tray and two plastic pipes put under a power socket outlet to collect water regularly coming out from the hole at rainfalls. Our Client advised that the water in the plastic tray was just cleared (Photo 2). A Tower was also put under this hole to absorb the extra leaking water.

3.5     We carried out Protimeter (Moisture Meter) test to the surround of the hole and recorded high moisture content (over 80%) (Photos 3—4). Our Client informed that water was noticed to have come out from the hole during the rainfall at the night before the inspection, i.e. on 3^rd July 2006.

3.6     Photos 5—7 indicated the damage caused by the water leakage problem in the 1/F Study Room. It included the wallpaper, the electrical wirings, wall embedded conduits, computer and telephone cables, the electrical installations, timber floor and skirting board, etc.

3.7     By use of a long ladder, we inspected condition of the roof (Photo 8). Photos 9—12 showed a general view. We noticed that the clay roofing tiles above House No. 19 had been newly painted in white colour. No apparent major cracks or dis-alignment was noted. At the exposed gutter and drain hole positions to the edge, we could identify that new layer of waterproofing membrane was dressed up underneath the roofing tiles and protected by a thin cement sand screeding (Photo 12). The waterproofing membrane, being black in colour was trusted to be a type of asphalt paint.

3.8     Photos 13—14 indicated the boundary between House No. 19 and House No. 17 on roof. The roofing tiles remained in brick-red colour.

為了找尋滲水的原因，他進行了以下的測試：

3.9     We intended to carry a non-destructive water spray test separately to the roofs of House No. 19 and House No. 17 in order to verify the possible location(s) of the water leakage. The method was agreed with the two representatives of the owner of House No. 17 Mr Law and Mr So (Director of Philip So & Associates Ltd., Consulting Civil and Geotechnical Engineers) at about 4:10 p.m. on that day.

…………………………..

3.11   The water spray test was attended and witnesses by the following parties:

Mrs Ng                   —  Owner of House No. 19

Mr Law & Mr So    —  Representative of the owner of House No. 17

Mr Wong                —  Local contractor

Mr Albert Chan      —  Surveyor of Dudley Surveyors Ltd.

3.12   Because of the pitched roofs and the position of the leading point being at the front of the building, both attending parties agreed that only the front and lower portion of the roofing tiles would need to be lifted up and expose the underneath surface for the test (Photo 15). And upon request by the owner’s representative of House No. 17, a large bed sheet was put in the position of the party wall to guard against the possible minor water seepage during the test. It was also mutually agreed that the position of the nozzle water spray and the methodology should be such that the separate roofs were tested each at one time and one-by-one (Photo 16).

3.13   The test was first carried out on the roof surface of House No. 19 at 4:25 p.m. and lasted for 15 minutes until 4:40 p.m. The condition of the power socket hold in the Study Room was jointly reviewed and examined by the attending parties. No apparent change was observed and the Protimeter recorded similar moisture content readings as before the test.

3.14   Lifting up of the roofing tiles at House No. 17 was followed and witnessed (Photo 18). It could be observed that at the exposed area, the tiles backing was in a more dilapidated condition with broken pieces of cement sand particles at the front. No recent or regular maintenance was apparent. We also did not notice any waterproofing membrane on the exposed portion of the major roof area (Photo 21).

3.15   Similar test procedures were commenced on the roof surface of House No. 17 at 5:00 p.m. for another 15 minutes (Photo 19—21).

3.16   About 5 minutes after the commencement of the test, we noticed that water drained out from the subject power point hole. The water coming out was continuous like “turning on a water tap” (Photos 22—23). During the time, the un-collected water also drained out from the power point hole and caused ponding on the floor (Photo 24). All the attending parties inspected and recorded the condition. The water spray stopped at about 5:15 p.m.

3.17   The water drain at the power point hole gradually stopped after completion of the water spray on roof.

對於滲水的原因，Albert Chan作出了以下的結論和建議：

4.1     Our visual inspection on 4^th July 2006 revealed that House No. 19 had still been affected by the water leakage problem. The damage so far included interior decorations like wallpaper and paintwork, timber floor and skirting board, electrical wirings, computer and telephone cables an the associated installations, etc.

4.2     The water leakage has been causing nuisance and hygienic problem to the occupants. In addition, there is possible risk of safety due to electrical fault and flooding in bad weather season. If the water leakage problem cannot be resolved, in the long run the structure of the building will be affected. Major cracks and concrete spalling will develop.

4.3     Due to the fact that the water leakage problem is always associated with bad weather rainfalls, we consider that the chance of it resulted from water carrying service pipes within the unit is unlikely. Because of the power point leaking hole being very close to the roofs and at the party wall of House No. 19 and House No. 17 on 1/F, there is likely chance of roof leakage, leading rainwater to the party wall’s embedded conduit(s) through large amount of water seepage and drained out from the socket outlet.

4.4     The verification water spray field test carried out on both roofs has been very effective. The test concluded that the course of the leakage is at the portion of the front part of the major roof above House No. 17. Site observation also provided useful indication that the roof above House No. 19 had been newly water-proofed, tested and maintained in a reasonable tidy and good condition. Whereas at the roof of House No. 17, we noticed cracks, broken pieces of cement sand backing, debris and in lack of a proper water-proofing layer/treatment. There has been poor maintenance to the roof at House No. 17.

11. 原告的專家證供－2006年9月21日之水試

於2006年9月21日，捷利行測量師有限公司的Albert Chan（原告的專家證人）視察原告物業，並作出了以下視察:

3.1     The inspection and test were carried out on 21^st September 2006 in the presence of the following parties:

Mrs Ng —  Owner of House No. 19

Mr Wong —  Local contractor appointed for assisting the spray water test

Mr Albert Chan & Mr Kerry Lai — Surveyor of Dudley Surveyors Ltd

3.2     During the time of inspection, the weather was sunny. The inspection was commenced at 3:30 p.m.

3.3     Photos 1 — 4 showed the interior of the Study room on first floor of House No. 19. Our inspection revealed that the affected wall surfaces remained moderately dry. The decorations within the room such as the peeled off wallpaper, the timber flooring and the electrical installations were noted not having been made good and replaced.

3.4     We marked nine moisture content monitoring points on the affected wall surfaces both above and under the working table within the Study Room (details refer to Appendix B). And we took a set of moisture content readings at these nine points before the spray water test was carried out on roof. The readings are tabulated and set out at Appendix C.

12.  在同一天Albert Chan進行了以下的測試:

3.5     With the assistance of a local contractor, Mr Wong, large portion of the roof tiles on House No. 19 was lifted up to expose the waterproof covered concrete surface before the test (Photos 9 & 10). Particular attention was paid not to disturb the roof tiles and all other parts on the roof of House No. 17 because these areas were to part of the test.

3.6     During our preparation, we could identify the recent patch repair areas on the roof of House No. 17. These areas showed that the original tiles had been lifted up for work and reinstated and that new coating was applied on top of the roof tiles (Photo 12).

3.7     The spray water test was commenced at 4:05 p.m. and we took moisture content readings at 15-minute intervals for 60 minutes in House No. 19. The test was completed at 5:05 p.m. A set of the recorded moisture contents was tabulated and set out at Appendix C.

3.8     The results indicated that in general, there was no change in moisture content of the tested wall surfaces.

13. 就2006年9月21日的測試，Albert Chan作出了以下的結論:

4.1     Based on our site observation and Protimeter records of the spray water test carried out on the roof of House No. 19, we conclude that the roof of House No. 19 is watertight and in our opinion is not the cause/source of minor seepage to the first floor Study room of House No. 19 during heavy rainfalls.

14. Mr. Albert Chan認為涉案兩物業雖然樓齡久了，若要修葺，亦可單針對破損處做維修。只是若新舊分別大，新舊塗料彈性有距離，駁口會有機會爆裂。

15.  他認為打鑿藏喉在香港住宅樓宇是很普遍的事情，不會對結構有重大影響。

16. Mr. Albert Chan表示一般住宅樓宇，因成本原因，用的「石屎」是不防水的，如要做防水效果，則要用防水塗料，如瀝青、epoxy等等。其他「石屎」建築如天橋用的「石屎」則會於製造時混入防水物料，使其不用防水塗料也能有防水效果。

17. 由被告提供照片顯示17號屋屋頂瓦片有數片曾被移動。本席接納被告證人羅富庭，新威工程有限公司負責人之證供，即使瓦片有曾被移動，對屋頂防漏性沒有影響。

18. 羅先生認為19號屋滲漏主因為雙方的共用牆天面有虛位，或因日久失修以致雨水由共用牆天面下滲至19號屋書房。

19. 本席考慮證供後，裁定17號屋瓦片雖然曾被移動，但並無證據證明瓦片移位曾導致19號屋或17號屋滲漏。

20.  本席亦有考慮被告專家Mr. Philip So提出於2006年7月4日測試。在被告物業屋頂灑水時，他認為水向原告物業流的路徑 (water path) 是被被告物業屋頂之橫向英泥 “ribs”「頂住」，再沿經被告物業屋頂之橫向英泥 “ribs”「向橫走」到共用牆的裂縫，使原告物業有滲漏之說法。但本席認為Mr. Philip So在其報告中所指 “… leakage path connecting from the roof of House 17…”，其實已表明同意17號屋頂有裂縫。本席不接納Mr. Philip So在庭上所指 “leakage path” 用詞不當，應該用 “water path”。Mr. Philip So在報告中沒提及他的 “water path” 及 “橫向英泥 ribs” 理論，只是在庭上作供時首次提出。本席對Mr. Philip So是否有給予法庭客觀的專家意見有所保留。本席反覆考慮雙方專家意見後，裁定原告人專家Mr. Albert Chan的意見比較可信，如雙方專家意見有衝突之處，本席會接納Mr. Albert Chan的意見，不接納Mr. Philip So的意見。

21.  由於原告已經在19號屋頂作全面維修，而灑水測試亦證明從19號屋頂灑水不會引致19號屋滲漏，本席裁定19號屋滲漏源頭出自17號屋。

22. 綜合上述專家報告，本席裁定原告物業之漏水是因爲被告物業屋頂存在瑕疵和裂縫，引致雨水由被告物業滲漏致共用牆。換言之，原告物業之滲漏是由被告物業之失修或破損而造成。

被告人的責任

23. 公共契約（公契註冊摘要號碼YL217662）第3及第5(c)段訂明：

“（3）  每一個單位或每一分段上所有建築物的當其時擁有人須保持其所屬單位或分段上的所有建築物的外面及裏面均保持修葺妥善及狀況良好，並將之維持於與保持該土地為高級住宅吻合的狀況；

5(c)    不可在任何地段或單位作出准許或容受他人作出任何可對其他分段或單位的擁有人或佔有人構成滋擾或煩擾之事情。”

因此，被告沒有妥善維修其物業違反了公共契約。

24. 根據高等法院原訟法庭胡國興法官在張秀玲及吳炳漢對鄭禮莊 CACV 268/98一案的判詞中指出：

“漏水可能導致「滋擾」，而法律就這項目有很明確的規範。簡單地說，有以下幾種普遍情況：

（1）      若漏水是在一處地方（包括樓宇單位）中發生，招致鄰舍（包括另一單位）損失時，而事源地方的戶主（是使用該地方的人，不一定需要是業主）明知漏水根源，他便是有意圖滋擾而須負法律責任。法律責任包括賠償及受禁制令禁制。

（2）      若漏水不是事源地方戶主自己或自己應代爲負責的人所招致，而他又不知道漏水已發生，他就不須對漏水所招致鄰舍的損失負責。

（3）      若漏水不是事源地方戶主自己或自己應代爲負責的人所招致，當他知道漏水源於他單位内，他須在無合理延誤下作出補救。否則，他須為該項漏水所招致鄰舍的損失負上法律責任。

（4）     以上三項中的「知道」，是指兩種情況：(a)是實質地知道，或(b)是在通常及合理謹慎下應可知道。故此，就算戶主實質上不知道漏水的存在，因爲他不在事源地方，他也不能藉此推卸責任。他身為戶主，對自己使用的地方要負法律責任。若在通常情況下戶主應可知道有關使用地方的情況，在法律上他就被視作知情。作爲地方的戶主，他應對該地方作出合理謹慎的處理。故此，對該地方的情況而言，一切他應在合理謹慎下可知道的，法律也將視為他知道。

（5）    第（2）和第（3）項所述的「戶主應代爲負責的人」，是指一切戶主准許進入或使用戶主地方的人，包括他的家人、朋友、僱員和入内工作的人，但不包括未獲他或上述的人准許而進入地方的人。”

25.  由於修補共用牆天面涉及需要揭開數行位於共用牆天面大約六十至八十件的瓦片，此工程涉及在被告的屋頂進行維修。本案原告曾多次要求被告針對19號屋滲漏作出維修，甚至答應代被告支付維修費用，但遭被告拒絕。被告人在知道原告物業滲水的情況下仍沒有妥善維修被告物業，構成對原告的「滋擾」。

裁決

26. 綜上所述，被告人沒有妥善維修其物業致使原告物業滲水，導致原告蒙受損失，本席裁定原告人申索得直。

27.  綜上，被告物業之失修或破損違反了公共契約及對原告人造成滋擾，應對原告人的不便及不舒適負責，原告人亦應獲判強制執行令、禁制令及獲得賠償。

對不方便及不舒適的一般賠償

28. 原告人的代表區大律師援引了大量有關屋内滲水造成滋擾的案例，其中在Leung Yung Chun & Another v Chan Wing Sang & Others (unreported, High Court Action No 12235 of 1998) 高等法院判定：

“this (damages for distress and inconvenience) is clearly a recoverable item.”

29. 衡量此類損失的賠償並無明確標準。根據Lau Ting Hang & Leung Kit Yuen Susanna v Leung Chi Wing (DCCJ 6539/2005) His Hon Judge Leung in Court 在第34段:

“For such intangible loss, there is no real formula of mathematical assessment: see Clerk & Lindsell at para. 20-29.”

30. 再者，在So John v Lau Hon Man (1993) 2 HKC 356中，高等法院上訴庭指出：

“There is no scientific way of translating inconvenience and discomfort into a sum of money: it had to be a conventional sum.”

在上案中上訴庭裁定屋内滲水導致的不便及滋擾的賠償金額為$10,000。

31. 在Cheng Chi Wing & Others v Ho Shu Wah & Chan Yin Fan Weddy (DCCJ 2370/2005)中，法庭判定被告人須賠償原告人$45,000，以賠償原告人因水管爆裂所承受的不方便及滋擾。

32. 在Leung Yung Chun & Another高等法院裁定原告人因廁所滲水滋擾所獲得的賠償金額為$25,000。

33. 在Chan Fei Lung v Mansion Products Ltd & Ors [1990] 1 HKC 504高等法院裁定原告人因滋擾所獲得的賠償金額為$25,000。

34. 鑒於原告物業長時期滲水情況嚴重，本席現判定被告人須賠償原告人$40,000以補償原告人所承受的不方便及不舒適。

特別賠償

35. 根據原告人的裝修工程“亞黃裝修工程”報價單，維修現有之滲水及在長期漏水下可能受影響之項目的工程費用合計$260,100。

		HK$
1.	換細房及走廊牆紙（包括做防潮）	12,000
2.	細房及走廊拆舊地板，鋪返同等地板及地腳綫	18,000
3.	屋頂揭過瓦片的地方重新做防水，固定返瓦片	3,000
	合計	33,000
長期漏水，以下項目有可能受影響
a.	細房書臺，書櫃	25,000
b.	房地板及地腳綫	22,000
c.	梯地板及地腳綫	13,000
d.	房，廁所門框	6,000
e.	衣櫃	21,000
f.	櫥櫃	25,000
g.	廳燈槽，天花牆紙	25,600
h.	電線	45,000
i.	二樓房，梯位牆紙	30,000
j.	走廊CD櫃	6,500
k.	閣仔梯	8,000
	合計	227,100

36. 然而，鑒于本席已頒發強制執行令，原告人所申索的維修費用只限於首兩項$12,000及$18,000共$30,000，其餘一項不獲賠償。同時，原告人所申索的剩餘賠償項目為未產生之損失，故無法獲得賠償。

命令

37. 本席現頒令如下：

（1）    強制執行令，被告人要在本判決書發出十四天內對被告物業屋頂進行維修工程，使其不再漏水滲入19號屋；

（2）    禁制令禁止被告人容許水從被告物業滲漏至原告物業；

（3）    強制執行令，被告人要容許原告人在雙方物業之共用牆天面進行防漏工程。此工程費用由雙方共同平均承擔；

（4）    被告人須對原告人的不便及不舒適作出一般賠償$40,000附加2%的年利率，由傳訊令狀送出之日起計至本判決書發出日止。其後，以法庭所定之裁決利率計算；

（5）    被告人須賠償原告人$30,000特別賠償及利息;由2006年7月4日起以法庭所定之裁決年利率的半份計算至本判決書發出日止。其後，以法庭所定之裁決利率計算。

（6）    至於訟費方面，被告人須付予原告人之訟費包括頒令大律師證明書及原告人之專家證人費用。如與訟雙方不能同意訟費金額，此金額將由法庭評核。以上訟費命令為暫時命令，如任何一方不向法院申請另作判令，則此暫時命令將於本判決書發出日期14天後，自動成為永久命令。