LEE CHUI SHAN HAZEL, IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEE YEE MOW, THE DECEASED v. LUI HUNG FEI AND ANOTHER

DCCJ 2415/2024

[2025] HKDC 1216

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2415 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  Before me is an application by the Plaintiff, made by summons filed on 13 May 2025, seeking default judgment against the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant (together, the “Defendants”), pursuant to Order 19, rule 7 of the Rules of the District Court, Cap 336H (“RDC”), for injunctive relief and damages to be assessed (the “Summons”).

2.  The present case is a water seepage case concerning properties situated at Flat No 6, 9^th Floor, Tai Koon Mansion, Nos 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 & 52, Woosung Street, Kowloon (“P’s Premises”)  and Flat No 6, 10^th Floor, Tai Koon Mansion, Nos 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 & 52, Woosung Street, Kowloon (“Ds’ Premises”).  Ds’ Premises is situated directly above P’s Premises.

3.  The Plaintiff’s case, as against Defendants, is founded upon, inter alia, allegations of negligence and nuisance arising from alleged water seepage emanating from Ds’ Premises into P’s Premises.

SERVICE & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

4.  On 6 May 2024, the Writ of Summons (containing an Indorsement of Claim), was issued by the Plaintiff against the 1^st Defendant. 

5.  On 30 May 2024, the 1^st Defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service and confirmed that he disputed the claim made against him.  In this document, the 1^st Defendant stated that his address for service was Ds’ Premises.  This address for service has never been changed or updated by the 1^st Defendant.

6.  On 11 November 2024, the Plaintiff filed her Statement of Claim in these proceedings.

7.  On 15 January 2025, Master J Chow granted, inter alia, leave to the Plaintiff to join the 2^nd Defendant as a defendant in these proceedings and to amend both the Writ and the Statement of Claim.  The Master also ordered that the Acknowledgment of Service of the 1^st Defendant, filed on 30 May 2024, do stand.

8.  On 16 January 2025, the Plaintiff filed the Amended Writ (containing an Amended Indorsement of Claim)  and the Amended Statement of Claim whereby the 2^nd Defendant was added as a defendant to these proceedings.

9.  In accordance with Order 10, rule 1(2)(b)  RDC, on 17 January 2025, the Plaintiff served the Amended Writ of Summons (with Indorsement of Claim)  and the Amended Statement of Claim (both filed on 16 January 2025)  on the 2^nd Defendant at Ds’ Premises (being the last known address of the 2^nd Defendant)  by sealing these documents in an envelope addressed to the 2^nd Defendant, and by insertion into the letterbox of Ds’ Premises.  In addition to this method of service, these documents were similarly sealed in an envelope addressed to the 2^nd Defendant and sent to the 2^nd Defendant at Ds’ Premises by ordinary post and also by leaving at Ds’ Premises.[1]

10.  Also on 17 January 2025, and in the same manner of service and/or delivery described in the preceding paragraph, the Plaintiff served and delivered the Amended Writ of Summons (with Amended Indorsement of Claim)  and the Amended Statement of Claim (both filed on 16 January 2025)  on the 1^st Defendant at Ds’ Premises (being the 1^st Defendant’s stated address for service in his Acknowledgment of Service filed on 30 May 2024).  In addition to insertion into letterbox, ordinary post and leaving at Ds’ Premises, these documents were also emailed to the 1^st Defendant by the Plaintiff’s solicitors.[2]

11.  Pursuant to Order 20, rule 3 RDC, the Plaintiff filed the Re-Amended Statement of Claim in these proceedings on 22 April 2025 (the “Re-Amended SOC”).

12.  Also on 22 April 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment against the 1^st Defendant and the 2^nd Defendant, pursuant to Order 19, r 8A RDC. 

13.  On the same day (22 April 2025), the Plaintiff served upon 2^nd Defendant, at Ds’ Premises, the Re-Amended Statement of Claim and the Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment, both filed on 22 April 2025, by enclosing these documents in a sealed envelope (together with a covering letter), addressed to the 2^nd Defendant and by posting by ordinary post, insertion into the letterbox and by leaving at the door.[3]

14.  On the same day and in the same manner as set out in the preceding paragraph, the Plaintiff served upon the 1^st Defendant, at Ds’ Premises, the Re-Amended Statement of Claim and the Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment, both filed on 22 April 2025.  Additionally, the Plaintiff’s solicitors did, on 29 April 2025, email the 1^st Defendant these documents together with a cover letter to the 1^st Defendant’s last known email address.[4]

15.  The 2^nd Defendant has never filed an Acknowledgment of Service in these proceedings and the 1^st Defendant has never filed a defence in these proceedings.

16.  Unsurprisingly, on 13 May 2025, the Plaintiff took out the Summons seeking default judgment against the Defendants.

17.  Also on 13 May 2025, the Plaintiff served the Summons on both the Defendants, at Ds’ Premises, by inserting a copy of the summons into two sealed envelopes, one addressed to the 1^st Defendant and the other addressed to the 2^nd Defendant, together with cover letters, and posting by ordinary post, insertion into the letterbox and by leaving at the door.[5]

18.  Additionally, the Plaintiff’s solicitors did, on 19 May 2025, email the 1^st Defendant a copy of the Summons together with a cover letter, to the 1^st Defendant’s last known email address.[6]

19.  On 22 May 2025, the Plaintiff served the Hearing Bundle, the Plaintiff’s Skeleton Submissions and the Plaintiff’s List of Authorities (all dated 22 May 2025)  on both of the Defendants, by leaving two copies of these documents, together with cover letters, one addressed to the 1^st Defendant and the other addressed to the 2^nd Defendant, at the door of Ds’ Premises.[7]

The hearing on 27 May 2025

20.  At the hearing on 27 May 2025, the 2^nd Defendant appeared and was unrepresented.  The 1^st Defendant did not attend and had not contacted this Court to explain his absence.  However, the 2^nd Defendant informed the Court that the 1^st Defendant had work obligations that he was required to attend to and could not attend Court that morning.  The Court was also informed by the 2^nd Defendant at this hearing that that he and the 1^st Defendant were, in fact, brothers.

21.  At the hearing on 27 May 2025, I explained to the 2^nd Defendant the court procedures, the legal principles applicable to the Summons and that I was inclined to adjourn the hearing to, inter alia, allow an opportunity for the 1^st Defendant to attend and address the Summons.  I also explained the legal consequences of the Summons succeeding and suggested to the 2^nd Defendant that he may wish to consider seeking legal advice and, if he wished to defend/contest the claim made against him by the Plaintiff, to apply to an extension of time to file the necessary court documents by way of filing a summons and supporting affidavit, before the adjourned hearing.

22.  Notwithstanding that the 2^nd Defendant alleged that he had not previously seen the documents served on him at Ds’ Premises because he had not checked at Ds’ Premises, the 2^nd Defendant expressly confirmed to this Court that Ds’ Premises was the correct and appropriate address for service of documents on him and confirmed that the Plaintiff should also serve future documents on him at Ds’ Premises.

23.  When I asked the 2^nd Defendant if there was another address that may be better for the purposes of service of future documents, the 2^nd Defendant insisted that Ds’ Premises was appropriate for the purpose of service.

24.  The hearing on 27 May 2025 was adjourned until 29 May 2025.

The adjourned hearing on 29 May 2025

25.  On 28 May 2025, the Plaintiff served the Plaintiff’s Supplemental Skeleton Submissions and the Plaintiff’s Supplemental List of Authorities (both dated 28 May 2025)  on both of the Defendants, by leaving two copies of these documents, together with cover letters, one addressed to the 1^st Defendant and the other addressed to the 2^nd Defendant, at the door of Ds’ Premises.[8]  Additionally, the Plaintiff’s solicitors did, on the same day, email the 1^st Defendant a copy of these documents together with a cover letter, to the 1^st Defendant’s last known email address.[9]

26.  The aforementioned covering letters served on the Defendants on 28 May 2025 expressly stated, the date, time and venue of the adjourned hearing on 29 May 2025.

27.  At the adjourned hearing on 29 May 2025, the 1^st Defendant again failed to attend and again failed to personally communicate any reason for such failure to the Court.  Rather, the 2^nd Defendant informed the Court that he had been told by the 1^st Defendant that the 1^st Defendant would not be attending the hearing because of a headache.

28.  The 1^st Defendant has been given two opportunities to attend and address the Summons.  He has failed to present himself at either and has provided no acceptable reason or justification for such absence.  I am, and was, of the view that it is, and was, expedient to proceed with the hearing of the Summons under Order 32, rule 5 RDC, notwithstanding the absence of the 1^st Defendant at the adjourned hearing on 29 May 2025.

29.  At the adjourned hearing, I again went to great lengths to explain to the 2^nd Defendant the court procedures, the legal principles applicable to the Summons and legal consequences of the Summons succeeding.  I also explained the submissions that were being made by Mr Ku, for the Plaintiff.

30.  Even at this adjourned hearing, and notwithstanding my suggestions to him at the previous hearing, the 2^nd Defendant had not filed any summons and supporting affidavit to apply for an extension of time to file the necessary court documents to defend/contest the Plaintiff’s claim made against him.

FINDINGS ON SERVICE

31.  From the affirmations of service filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, I am satisfied that the Amended Writ of Summons (with Amended Indorsement of Claim), the Amended Statement of Claim, the Re-Amended Statement of Claim, the Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment filed on 22 April 2025 and the Summons were duly served on both of the Defendants by the Plaintiff and that such service amounts to proper service under Order 10, rule 1(2)(b)  RDC.

32.  In light of the fact that the 2^nd Defendant has never filed any Acknowledgement of Service and not given notice of intention to defend these proceedings, the requirement to serve a Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment pursuant to Order 19, rule 8A RDC (and to file an affidavit in relation to service of the same)  is not engaged.  Order 19, rule 8A RDC does not apply where no notice of intention to defend the proceedings has been filed by a defendant.  It only applies where such notice has been filed.[10]  The Plaintiff seems to have, nonetheless, served the 2^nd Defendant with the Notice of Intention to Enter Judgment, filed on 22 April 2025, out of an abundance of caution.

33.  I am further satisfied that the Hearing Bundles, the Plaintiff’s Skeleton Submissions and the Plaintiff’s List of Authorities (all dated 22 May 2025), as well as the Plaintiff’s Supplemental Skeleton Submissions and the Plaintiff’s Supplemental List of Authorities (both dated 28 May 2025)  were also adequately served on both of the Defendants by the Plaintiff.

THE FACTS PLEADED IN THE RE-AMENDED SOC

34.  From the Re-Amended SOC, the following salient facts have been pleaded by the Plaintiff:-

(1)  Mr Lee Yee Mow (the “Deceased”)  was the sole registered owner of P’s Premises and the father of the Plaintiff.

(2)  The Deceased passed away on 19 March 2022 and, by letter of administration under Grant No HCAG 020825/2022, the Plaintiff has been appointed as the administratrix of the Deceased’s estate.

(3)  By an Assignment dated 8 March 2005, Mr Lui Kai Yu and Madam Lam Ching Wan became the joint tenants of Ds’ Premises.

(4)  By an Assignment dated 8 August 2023, the 1^st Defendant became the sole registered owner of Ds’ Premises. The 1^st Defendant is the son of Mr Lui Kai Yu.

(5)  By an Assignment dated 30 October 2024, the 2^nd Defendant became the sole registered owner of Ds’ Premises.

(6)  Ds’ Premises is located directly above and vertically enjoins P’s Premises.

(7)  The Defendants, during their respective periods of ownership of Ds’ Premises, were required to perform and observe the covenants, provisions and restrictions set out in the Deed of Mutal Covenant dated 31 May 1963 (the “DMC”), including:-

(a)  Clause 12(c)  of the DMC, which provides that each owner shall “not use his flat… nor do or permit anything therein … which … may be of become a nuisance annoyance damage or inconvenience to the other occupiers of the said Building” and;

(b)  Clause 12(d)  of the DMC, which provides that each owner shall “not commit or suffer to be committed on his flat … which would constitute a nuisance or annoyance to the owners or occupiers of the other flats”.

(8)  Further or alternatively, pursuant to section 34H of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap 344)  (the “BMO”), the 1^st Defendant was, and the 2^nd Defendant is and was under a duty to maintain Ds’ Premises in good repair and condition.

(9)  Further and/or alternatively, as the registered owner of Ds’ Premises, the 1^st Defendant owed, and the 2^nd Defendant owed and owes the Plaintiff duties of care under common law:-

(a)  To keep and maintain Ds’ Premises in proper repair and condition;

(b)  To prevent water leaking, seeping and/or dripping from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises;

(c)  To prevent causing nuisance, distress and or inconvenience to neighbours;

(d)  To prevent causing harm or injury to P’s Premises; and

(e)  To not disturb the enjoyment and comfort of P’s Premises.

(10)  P’s Premises is and was divided with Rooms A, B, C and D with a common corridor for leasing purposes.

(11)  On or about 12 May 2022, water seepage was discovered at the ceiling of Room A of P’s Premises (“Room A”).

(12)  In or about early June 2022, Mr Choi, the estate agent managing P’s Premises for and on behalf of P (“Mr Choi”)  informed the 1^st Defendant about the water seepage problem in Room A.

(13)  On diverse dates between June and August 2022, the 1^st Defendant alleged to Mr Choi and he and/or his father had arranged for a contractor to conduct repair works at Ds’ Premises.

(14)  However, the water seepage in Room A has persisted.

(15)  On or around 4 September 2023, water seepage was noticed and observed at the ceiling of Room B of P’s Premises (“Room B”).

(16)  On or around 28 September 2023, the tenant of Room B informed Mr Choi that the water seepage problem in Room B had worsened and there was more plaster blistering on the ceiling thereof.

(17)  On or around 3 October 2023, the tenant of Room B informed Mr Choi that there was concrete spalling and debonded plastering on the ceiling of Room B.

(18)  On or around 6 December 2023, the Incorporated Owners of Tai Koon Mansion held a meeting where it was discussed that, after thorough investigation, it had been discovered that the drainage pipe of Ds’ Premises was defective.

(19)  On or about 14 December 2023, the management company of Tai Koon Mansion requested the 1^st Defendant to repair the defective drainage pipe of Ds’ Premises on or before 21 December 2023.

(20)  However, the water seepage in both Rooms A and B of P’s Premises persists to date.

(21)  In or about March 2024, the Plaintiff engages an architect and authorised person, Mr Pau Chi Hoi (“Mr Pau”)  of Tappro, to investigate the water seepage and carry out tests in P’s Premises.

(22)  By a report dated 24 March 2024 (the “Tappro Report”), Mr Pau concluded that:-

(a)  P’s Premises was suffering from serious water seepage.

(b)  The water seepage at the ceiling of Room A and at the ceiling of Room B originated from Ds’ Premises.

(c)  There was water seepage at the ceiling of the common corridor of P’s Premises, which originated from Ds’ Premises.

(d)  Vertical water seepage paths were noted at the ceilings of Room A, Room B and the common corridor of P’s Premises.

(e)  The water seepage at the ceilings of Room A, Room B and the common corridor of P’s Premises was confirmed to be due to (i)  the defective water pipe(s), including drainage pipe(s)  at Ds’ Premises and (ii)  due to inappropriate connecting of potable supply for drainage purposes at Ds’ Premises.

(f)  There were no signs of evidence showing that the water seepage was caused either by communal pipes or external wall of the building.

(23)  The Plaintiff has made numerous demands to the Defendants to rectify the water seepage:-

(a)  By letter dated 19 October 2023, the Plaintiff’s solicitors demanded that the 1^st Defendant investigate into and rectify the water seepage;

(b)  By a letter dated 17 April 2024, the Plaintiff’s solicitors provided the 1^st Defendant with a copy of the Tappro Report, and reiterated the demands set out in the letter of 19 October 2023;

(c)  Subsequent to the commencement of the present action, the Plaintiff discovered that Ds’ Premises had been assigned to the 2^nd Defendant on 30 October 2024 and the 2^nd Defendant had become the sole registered owner of Ds’ Premises;

(d)  By a letter dated 15 November 2024, the Plaintiff’s solicitors provided the 2^nd Defendant with the background of the action as well as copies of the Writ, the Statement of Claim and the Tappro report and demanded that the 2^nd Defendant investigate and rectify the water seepage.

(24)  Despite these demands from the Plaintiff, no positive response has been provided to the Plaintiff by the Defendants.

(25)  Up to the date of the Re-Amended SOC, the 2^nd Defendant has failed to carry out constructive remedial works to rectify the water seepage which has resulted in a continuous and subsisting water seepage problem to P’s Premises.

(26)  In breach of the duty of care owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are liable in negligence for causing and/or permitting water to seep from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises.  The Plaintiff has pleaded the following particulars of negligence:-

(a)  Failing to keep Ds’ Premises in good repair and condition;

(b)  Failing or failing properly or adequately to install, maintain, repair, check and/or inspect the waterproofing facilities and/or the water pipes and/or connection of potable supply and/or other parts of Ds’ Premises so as to prevent water and/or liquid from leaking, seeping, flooding, percolating or otherwise escaping to P’s Premises;

(c)  Failing or failing properly or regularly to check and/or inspect the waterproofing facilities and/or the water pipes and/or the connection of potable supply and/or other parts of Ds’ Premises, so as to keep, preserve and/or maintain the same in good repair and condition;

(d)  Causing or permitting water and/or liquid to escape, leak, drip, percolate or seep from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises;

(e)  Failing to take any or any proper, sufficient or adequate steps, preventive measures or precautions to halt, abate, prevent or stop water and/or liquid from escaping, percolating, leaking, dripping and/or seeping from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises; and

(f)  Failing to take all reasonable and/or effective measures to avoid nuisance, annoyance, damage and/or inconvenience to the Plaintiff and/or to avoid any interference with the use, occupation and enjoyment of P’s Premises.

(27)  Further and/or alternatively, the Defendants have wrongfully breached Clause 12(c)  and Clause 12(d)  of the DMC and section 34H of the BMO in causing and/or permitting water to seep from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises.

(28)  Still further and/or alternatively:-

(a)  the Defendants have caused nuisance, annoyance and/or unreasonable interference with the Plaintiff’s reasonable use and enjoyment of P’s Premises in causing and/or permitting water to seep from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises; and

(b)  the Defendants knew or ought reasonably to have known of the said nuisance but permitted the same to remain and failed to carry out rectification works within a reasonable time.

(29)  As a result on of the ongoing water seepage, Room A and Room B of P’s Premises have been left vacant since 29 May 2022 and 1 December 2023 respectively and both rooms have been rendered uninhabitable and unable to be leased out. 

(30)  The water seepage has caused loss and damage to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has pleaded the following particulars of loss and damage as against the Defendants:-

(a)  Loss of rental income, to be assessed;

(b)  Costs of repair and reinstatement of the P’s Premises, to be assessed;

(c)  Damages for distress, discomfort and inconvenience, to be assessed; and

(d)  Costs of the Tappro Report prepared by Mr Pau, in the sum of HK$18,000.

(31)  As against the 2^nd Defendant, the Plaintiff has further pleaded prayers seeking injunctive relief:-

(a)  Restraining the 2^nd Defendant from further causing, allowing or permitting water to leak from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises (the “Restraining Injunction”); and

(b)  Requiring the 2^nd Defendant to, within 70 days from the date of the order to be made, remove all causes of the water seepage from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises (the “Mandatory Injunction”).

35.  In his Skeleton Submissions dated 22 May 2025, Mr Stephen Ku, Counsel for the Plaintiff, has confirmed that the Plaintiff seeks an order for damages to be assessed and for only the Mandatory Injunction.

36.  Mr Ku has, very fairly, accepted that, as a general principle, in the absence of special circumstances, a mandatory injunction to effect due repairs would be sufficient remedy: See Chiu Hung Shun Paul v So Ka Tai, unrep, CACV 136/2005, 5 December 2005 at §16.  As such, the Plaintiff does not seek an order for the Restraining Injunction in the present application.

The Applicable Legal Principles

37.  The legal principles applicable to the granting of default judgment under Order 19, rule 7 RDC are well-settled and have been usefully summarised by Deputy District Judge Kay Seto in her judgment in Ho Sai Cheong & Anor v Honest Gate Company Limited [2024] HKDC 633 at §§7-8. In considering the present application, I bear in mind the following principles:

(1)  In determining whether to grant default judgment, the Court must consider the application according to the pleadings alone, and decide whether the Plaintiff appears to be entitled to judgment on the matters pleaded in the SOC: Seto Yim King v Soo Hooyet Dew [2019] HKCFI 2640, §10.

(2)  The court cannot receive any evidence, and it is thus not necessary for the Plaintiff to prove their case by evidence: Times Square Limited v Lee Kwun Kit trading as JL Music and Anor [2020] HKCFI 438, §14(3).

(3)  Notwithstanding the wording in Order 19, rule 7(1), the court’s power to grant default judgment is discretionary and not mandatory: Times Square Limited (supra), §14(4).

(4)  The court has jurisdiction to grant permanent injunctions in default judgment applications: Biostime International Investment Ltd v France Heson Paper (Hong Kong)  Co Ltd [2015] 2 HKLRD 658, §§12-13; Times Square Limited (supra), §14(5).

38.  I also note that mandatory injunctions requiring defendant(s)  to abate or remedy water leakage have been granted in previous similar cases.  See, for example, Victory Success Trading Limited v Cheung Kin Ying [2020] HKDC 753; Kuo Tsz Wai v Wong Sau Yuen [2024] HKDC 214; Ho Sai Cheong & Anor v Honest Gate Company Limited (supra); Tam Tze Hang Antony v Ngai Ping Yuen [2024] HKDC 1102 and Joy Asia Limited v Wong Chui Hong & Anor [2024] HKDC 1522. 

39.  As to the standard of compliance required of litigants-in-person, Lam VP (as he then was)  categorically stated in AXA China Region Insurance Co Ltd v Leong Fong Cheng [2016] 6 HKC 220 at §47 that:-

“47. Sometimes litigants acting in person treated the court as their legal advisors and shifted the responsibility for the preparation of their case to the court. We must state categorically that a litigant acting in person should bear responsibility for the proper preparation of his or her own case in accordance with the rules and procedures of the court. The court’s function is to adjudicate or rule on a matter, not to give advice.” (emphasis added)

40.  In Success Lane Development Limited v Ferguson Hong Kong Limited [2024] HKCA 839 at §26, Godfrey Lam JA pointed out that lack of legal representation will generally not justify applying a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court:-

“26. Deputy Judge M Lam was also fully justified in finding that there had been material non-disclosure before Judge Yip. The plaintiff relies on the fact that it was not legally represented at the time. Whilst the lack of legal representation may justify making allowances in making case management decisions and in conducting hearings, it will generally not justify applying a lower standard of compliance with rules or orders of the court: Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] 1 WLR 1119, §18 …” (emphasis added)

ANALYSIS & ORDERS

41.  Even as at the date of the adjourned hearing on 29 May 2025, nothing had been filed on behalf of either of the Defendants to oppose the Summons.

42.  On the basis of the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff in the Re-Amended SOC, I am satisfied that:-

(1)  The Plaintiff has made out a valid claim against the Defendants for negligence and/or nuisance and/or breach of the provisions of the DMC and the BMO in respect of the water seepage from Ds’ Premises into P’s Premises and the consequential damage to P’s Premises caused thereby.

(2)  It is appropriate, in all the circumstances, for the me to exercise my discretion in favour of the granting default judgment against the Defendants.

(3)  The Plaintiff has suffered loss and damage as a result of the Defendants negligence and/or nuisance and/or breaches of the DMC and the BMO.

(4)  Further, it would be appropriate, and there is a genuine need, for a grant of injunctive relief compelling the 2^nd Defendant to repair and/or take remedial action to abate the water seepage.  Without an injunction ordering the 2^nd Defendant to abate and remedy the water seepage, it is more likely than not that the nuisance and/or breaches of the DMC and BMO would persist and continue to cause damage to P’s Premises and further deprive the Plaintiff of enjoyment of P’s Premises.

43.  I therefore make an order in the following terms, and such order shall be endorsed with a penal notice in accordance with Order 45, rule 7(4)  RDC:-

(1)  Judgment in default of defence to the Plaintiff’s claim as stated in the Re-Amended SOC, dated 22 April 2025, be entered into against the Defendants;

(2)  The 2^nd Defendant do, within 70 days from the date of service of the sealed order, remove all causes of the water seepage from Ds’ Premises to P’s Premises by:-

(a)  Replacing all defective water pipes (including the drainage pipes)  at Ds’ Premises immediately above P’s Premises with pipes that are functional and non-defective,

(b)  Replacing all inappropriate connection of potable supply for drainage purposes at Ds’ Premises with appropriate connection,

at the 2^nd Defendant’s own costs and expenses, with certificate of satisfaction to be issued by an independent authorised person, building surveyor or engineer to be jointly appointed by the parties and at the 2^nd Defendant’s expenses, with liberty to apply if the parties are unable to agree on the candidate; and

(3)  The Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendants be assessed.

44.  Costs should follow the event. I therefore order that the costs of this action, including the costs of the Summons, be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff, in any event, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for counsel.