CHOW KWOK WING, suing by his lawful attorney CHOW CHAK TONG AND OTHERS v. YEUNG OI LING

DCCJ 2720/2024

[2025] HKDC 2205

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2720 OF 2024

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Introduction

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

2.  The 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs are the sole registered title owner of Flat No.6 on 7/F of Hong Sang House, Kin Sang Estate, No.3 Leung Wan Street, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the Premises”).  The 3^rd Plaintiff is at all the material times the occupier of the Premises.

3.  The Defendant is the sole registered title owner of Flat No.6 on 8/F of the same building. 

4.  On 30 August 2024, in the absence of any notice of intention to defend, the Plaintiffs obtained judgment against the Defendant, leaving damages to be assessed.  The Plaintiffs obtained a mandatory injunction against the Defendant compelling her to carry out all necessary repair works and restraining her from causing or permitting water to come from her flat to the Premises.

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 5 categories of loss and damage: (i) costs of remedial work, (ii) replacement of mattress, (iii) costs of cleaning, (iv) alternative accommodation, and (v) damages for distress, discomfort, and inconvenience. 

7.  The hearing was first heard on 5 December 2025 at which this Court noticed and pointed out that, in breach of Master Louise Chan’s Order on 15 September 2025, the Plaintiffs did not file and serve an application for setting down for assessment of damages at all.  This Court adjourned the hearing to 22 December 2025 and ordered a further affirmation of service be filed.   The Defendant did not show up in this hearing. 

8.  At the hearing on 22 December 2025, the Defendant was at first absent.  Having read the affirmation of service filed on 12 December 2025, this Court proceeded with the assessment of damages in the absence of her.  It was until the Plaintiffs’ only factual witness, namely the 3^rd Plaintiff, had almost finished giving his evidence in the witness box, the Defendant showed up in the public gallery.  

9.  Having ascertained the Defendant’s identity and stance, with no objection from the Plaintiffs’ legal representative, this Court allowed the factual witness to be recalled, so as to afford the Defendant a fair opportunity to conduct cross-examination and advance her position.   

The Plaintiffs’ case

10.  Around 2018, the Plaintiffs started to discovered signs of water seepage in the Premises.  Around January 2024, they realised the water seepage in the bedroom had become increasing obvious and serious.  There was water dripping from the ceiling, which caused stain to the mattress.  The 3^rd Plaintiff had to place buckets to catch the drops.  In addition, the ceiling plasters bulged and peeled. Notwithstanding the efforts of the management company in urging the Defendant to carry out repair promptly, the water seepage did not improve.  

The Evidence

11.  In the present hearing, the Plaintiffs called 1 factual witness, namely the 3^rd Plaintiff himself (“Mr Chow”).  Expert evidence from a surveyor Ms Lau Shan La (“Ms Lau”) is also adduced in the form of a report dated 30 April 2024.  The Defendant who had adduced no documentary evidence and witness evidence for the purpose of assessment of damages simply alleged at the hearing what the Plaintiffs adduced is false and fabricated.  This Court rejected all the baseless accusations from the Defendant.

12.  Notwithstanding the repeated explanations given by this Court, the Defendant, in cross-examination and making submissions, dwelt on irrelevant matters and issues concerning liability instead of how the quantum should be assessed.  

13.  The Defendant’s position can be summarised as follows: (i) she had immediately fixed the water seepage problems which were only of minor nature; (ii) the investigation result of the Housing Authority and/or Joint Office does not support the Plaintiffs’ claim; (iii) the Plaintiffs made up the present proceedings so as to solicit money from her; and (iv) she had reported the matter to police.  This Court found the aforesaid propositions lacking in basis and substance and hence rejected them all.

14.  Despite this Court had repeatedly reminded the Defendant that she should focus her questions on challenging the 5 heads of losses claimed by the Plaintiffs, she resorted to argue on liability in the absence of any factual or expert evidence.  Forgoing the ample opportunities open to her, the Defendant even said she has further no interest in pursuing any challenges on assessment of damages which sounded meaningless and petty to her.  After cross-examination, Mr Chow’s oral testimony remains unshaken.  This Court found the evidence of witness to be straightforward, credible, and reliable.

Costs of remedial work

15.  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. 

16.  Ms Lau opined that a qualified small contractor should be engaged to carry out re-plastering and re-painting in the two bedrooms affected.  In addition, three layers of water proofing paint should also be applied.  She further went on to explain protective shield covering the furniture and floor as well as subsequent removal of construction waste are required. 

17.  Having considered the assessment conducted by Ms Lau in relation to the problems identified, with sufficient breakdowns and details, this Court held that the assessed sum of HK$22,683.10 reasonable and will allow this sum to be recoverable from the Defendant. 

Replacing mattress

18.  The Plaintiffs rely on the evidence of Mr Chow which says the water dripping was salt water leaving yellow and stinky stains on the mattress in one of the bedrooms.  The peeling of plaster and paint also left the mattress extremely dirty and unusable.  Mr Chow claims for a mattress of the same brand and model at HK$6,930.

19.  Having considered the seriousness of the water seepage, especially those photos enclosed to Ms Lau’s report, this Court found the reasonable sum of HK$6,930 the consequential loss flowing directly and foreseeably from the Defendant’s water seepage and will allow the same to be recovered from the Defendant.

Costs of cleaning

20.  The Plaintiffs claim a sum of HK$1,600 for engaging worker to clean up the debris and dispose of the waste. Mr Chow estimated that 8 hours are required from a worker whose hourly rate is around HK$200. 

21.  Given the scope and extent of repair and remedial work required in addressing the water seepage in the Premises, this Court found the sum of HK$1,600 reasonable and recoverable from the Defendant.

Alternative accommodation

22.  Alternative accommodation is recoverable at law, as Master Raymond Chow observes in Chan Albert Koon Keung and Others v Yee Yun Tung, (22/12/2020, DCCJ 3071/2017) [2020] HKDC 1201 at paragraph 21.

23.  This Court accepts that during the time when the remedial works are being carried out, the Premises will become unsuitable for living.  A period of 7 days would be sufficient and reasonable (inclusive of preparation in advance and follow-up work after completion of repairing work).  Having considered the hotel quotation obtained, this Court will allow the full sum of HK$5,600 recoverable under this head (HK$800 x 7 days). 

Damages for distress, discomfort, and inconvenience

24.  The Plaintiffs draw the Court’s attention to the following matters:

(1)     The water seepage problems have lasted for about 7 years.

(2)     Peeling plaster and finishes frequently fall which adversely affected living quality. 

(3)     Mr Chow had to place buckets on the floor to catch dripping of water and empty them from time to time.

(4)     Protective measures were taken to cover furniture and personal belongings.

(5)     The large amount of dust accumulated on top and in the body of the air-conditioners affected the proper functioning.

(6)     Dampness and unpleasant odour surrounding the rooms caused Mr Chow to climb up and down to clean, resulting in considerable trouble.

25.  Mr Chow testified that he has been annoyed by the water seepage.  As he observed, the problems have not been completely rectified by the Defendant, notwithstanding the mandatory injunction granted and the committal order (for contempt) granted on 10 October 2025.   He said the Defendant has remained uncooperative.  The Defendant put to Mr Chow that she has been using big towels at her unit to help with the situation, which was not admitted by Mr Chow.  In any event, this Court does not accept that this mere suggestion could in any sense assist the Defendant position.

26.  The Plaintiffs rely on Chung Che Shum & Another v Dong Sai Ming Fernando & Another (15/02/2007, DCCJ21504/2001) and 林鎮彬對 Ko Chee Ko 及另一人 (16/02/2016, DCCJ3009/2012).  It is submitted that a sum of HK$80,000 is appropriate.  Having considered evidence placed before this Court, this Court accepts the full sum of HK$80,000 as reasonable and recoverable from the Defendant. 

Conclusion

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

(1)	Costs of remedial works	HK$22,683.10
(2)	Replacing mattress	HK$6,930.00
(3)	Costs of cleaning work	HK$1,600.00
(4)	Alternative accommodation	HK$5,600.00
(5)	Damages for distress, discomfort, and inconvenience	HK$80,000.00
		_____________
	TOTAL:	HK$116,813.10
		============

28.  I order that the Defendant do pay the sum of HK$116,813.10 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. 21 May 2024 to the date of the judgment and thereafter at judgment rate to the date of full payment.

29.  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), to be taxed if not agreed. Unless any party applies to vary the costs order nisi within 14 days hereof, the costs order shall become an absolute order.

30.  The Defendant, if necessary, may approach my clerk to make an appointment with a court interpreter for this Assessment of Damages to be interpreted.