LAU TIN FAI v. GOLD REGAL INTERNATIONAL LTD

DCCJ 7008/2024

[2026] HKDC 311

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 7008 OF 2024

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

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

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

DECISION

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

1.  This is the hearing of the plaintiff’s summons, issued on 20 January 2026, seeking leave to enter the Defendant’s Property (as defined below) to carry out remedial works therein for the purpose of removing all causes of water seepage originating from the Defendant’s Property.

2.  At the hearing on 12 February 2026, Mr Choi, counsel for the plaintiff, informed the Court that the hearing bundle and the plaintiff’s skeleton submissions had not been served on the defendant. He requested for a short adjournment. I granted the adjournment to allow service to be effected and rescheduled the plaintiff’s summons to be heard before me on 27 February 2026.

3.  Having read the affirmation of service, I am satisfied that the hearing bundle and the plaintiff’s skeleton submissions were duly served on the defendant. I am also satisfied that the plaintiff’s summons was properly served. The defendant failed to appear at the hearing on 27 February 2026, and I proceed to hear the plaintiff’s summons in its absence.

Background

4.  The plaintiff is, and at all material times was, the sole registered owner of the property situated at Flat A1, 8/F, Block A, Paterson Building, No 47 Paterson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (the “Plaintiff’s Property”).

5.  The defendant is, and at all material times was, the sole registered owner of the property situated at Flat A1, 9/F, Block A, Paterson Building, No 47 Paterson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong (the “Defendant’s Property”). The defendant is a limited company incorporated in Hong Kong and engaged in the business of property ownership. 

6.  The Defendant’s Property is located directly above the Plaintiff’s Property. 

This Action

7.  The plaintiff commenced this action as a result of water seepage originating from the Defendant’s Property and infiltrating the Plaintiff’s Property.

8.  From approximately mid-2022 onwards, the plaintiff discovered numerous instances of water leakage originating from the Defendant's Property into the Plaintiff’s Property, including:

(1)     Continuous dripping of water from the ceilings of the master bedroom, living room, guest bedroom, and corridor of the Plaintiff’s Property; and

(2)     Extensive dampness affecting substantial portions of the ceilings, structural beams, and walls throughout the master bedroom, living room, guest bedroom, and corridor, resulting in significant spalling, flaking, and cracking of the paint and underlying concrete surfaces.

9.  Upon becoming aware of the water seepage, the plaintiff promptly took action.  On 8 September 2022, the plaintiff notified the defendant and also gave notice to both the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (the “FEHD”) and the Buildings Department (the “BD”).  The Plaintiff further contacted both departments by telephone on 21 September 2022.

10.  Following the plaintiff’s notifications, the FEHD conducted a series of inspections at both the Plaintiff’s Property and the Defendant's Property, and subsequently issued a Water Leakage Assessment Report on 29 November 2023.

11.  On 13 December 2023, the plaintiff personally delivered a letter to the Defendant's Property requesting that remedial works be undertaken to address the water seepage problem.  No remedial action was taken by the defendant.

12.  The plaintiff then engaged Mr Pau Chi Hoi, an architect registered under the Architects Registration Board (Registration No AP(A) 2/13) from Tappro Construction Company Limited, to conduct a detailed building survey of the Plaintiff’s Property to determine the source and extent of the water seepage. Mr Pau’s findings, set out in his report dated 6 June 2024 (the “Architect Report”),established that:

(1)     The water seepage at the Plaintiff’s Property originated from defective waterproofing systems serving the subdivided bathrooms of the Defendant's Property, specifically resulting from floor infiltration; and

(2)     There was no evidence whatsoever indicating that the water seepage was attributable to communal pipework or external wall defects.

13.  The water seepage remained unresolved.  The plaintiff therefore had no choice but to commence the present action. 

The Plaintiff obtained default judgment against the Defendant

14.  It is sufficient to note that the time for the defendant to file and serve its Defence had expired after the plaintiff had filed and served his Writ of Summons together with the Statement of Claim.  The plaintiff thereafter applied for default judgment against the defendant under Order 19 of the RDC, by way of a summons dated 9 April 2025.

15.  On 15 July 2025, DDJ J. Remedios entered default judgment against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, granting the following orders (the “Default Judgment Order”): -

(1)     Judgment in default of defence to the plaintiff’s claim, as stated in the Statement of Claim dated 26 November 2024, be entered against the defendant;

(2)     The defendant shall, within 56 days from service of the sealed order and at its own costs, remove all causes of water seepage from the Defendant’s Property into the Plaintiff’s Property by replacing all defective parts, including pipes and membranes if any, of the waterproofing system in all bathrooms in the Defendant’s Property with parts which are functional and non-defective;

(3)     The plaintiff’s agent(s) be allowed to carry out investigations and tests to ensure/confirm that such remedial/rectification works have been completed, and the costs of carrying out such investigations and tests by the plaintiff’s agent(s) shall be borne by the defendant, but shall not exceed HK$10,000; and

(4)     Damages to be assessed.

Events Subsequent to the Entry of Default Judgment 

16.  The sealed copy of the Default Judgment Order was duly served on the defendant on 16 September 2025 at approximately 2:30 pm by the plaintiff’s solicitor, by insertion into the letter box of the registered address of the Defendant at Flat A1, 2/F, Paterson Building, 47 Paterson Street, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong.

17.  Further, on 8 October 2025, the plaintiff sent a copy of the Default Judgment Order to the defendant’s director, Mr Lin, via WhatsApp. Mr Lin acknowledged receipt on the same day. 

18.  In or around late October 2025, Mr Lin informed the plaintiff that he had already engaged a contractor to carry out remedial works at the Defendant’s Property.  However, as late as November 2025, the Plaintiff’s Property continued to suffer water seepage affecting the ceilings and walls of the master bedroom, guest bedroom, living room, and corridor. 

19.  The plaintiff then re-engaged Mr Pau, who attended the Plaintiff’s Property on 20 November 2025 to conduct Infrared Thermography Tests and Moisture Content Measurements. 

20.  On 28 November 2025, the plaintiff’s solicitors issued a letter demanding that the defendant take action to address the problem. 

21.  In that letter, the plaintiff made reasonable proposals to the defendant, including an alternative solution whereby the defendant would permit contractors engaged by the plaintiff to enter the Defendant’s Property and perform all necessary remedial works to resolve the problem once and for all. The plaintiff also noted that his contractor would be available to carry out inspection and remedial works, and reminded the defendant that an application under Order 45 Rule 8 of the RDC would be the only alternative if no constructive response was received. 

22.  Regrettably, neither the defendant nor Mr Lin provided any reply. 

23.  In late December, the plaintiff received a supplementary test report from Mr Pau dated 17 December 2025 (the “Supplemental Test Report”).  At page 16 of the Supplemental Test Report, Mr Pau concluded:

(1)     Location 2 (the living room) and Location 3 (the guest bedroom) continued to suffer from water leakage.

(2)     Water seepage at Location 1 (the master bedroom) and Location 4 (the corridor) had ceased following purported repair works carried out by the defendant.

(3)     The said repair works did not successfully rectify the water seepage problem.

24.  As of now, the water seepage problems at Location 2 and 3 persist. Worst still, in mid-January 2026, concrete from the ceiling at Location 3 fell, posing a serious risk to the plaintiff’s personal safety as he continues to reside at the Plaintiff’s Property. 

25.  In light of Mr Pau’s conclusions and the defendant’s attitude, the plaintiff has no alternative but to take out the plaintiff’s summons. 

Discussion 

26.  Order 45 rule 8 of the RDC provides: -

“If a mandatory order, an injunction or a judgment or order for the specific performance of a contract is not complied with, then, without prejudice to its powers to punish the disobedient party for contempt, the Court may direct that the act required to be done may, so far as practicable, be done by the party by whom the order or judgment was obtained or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the disobedient party, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and execution may issue against the disobedient party for the amount so ascertained and for costs.”

27.  Order 45 rule 8 of the RDC empowers the court to direct that an act required to be done by a party under a mandatory order, an injunction, or a judgment may instead be carried out by the party in whose favour the order or judgment was made. See Ever International Investment Holdings Limited v Lee Wah, DCCJ 886/2014 (unreported, 1 February 2016), a water seepage case in which DDJ Phillis Loh (as she then was) granted leave to the plaintiff to enter the defendant’s premises to carry out remedial works in order to stop the water leakage problem.

28.  Similarly, in Tsai Hsiu Yun v Lim Goine, DCCJ 862/2015 (unreported, 22 August 2016), another water seepage case, DDJ Mak granted an injunction compelling the defendant to take remedial action to rectify water leakage/seepage. His Honour observed (at [29]) that “[i]f the defendant fails to comply with an injunction, the plaintiff is entitled to invoke Order 45 rule 8 of the Rules of the District Court to seek an appropriate order.”

29.  In Yip Yuet Ming & Another v Liu King Wa [2025] HKDC 1279, DDJ Vincent Chen followed Ever International and observed that, since there had been non-compliance with an earlier injunction order requiring the defendant to carry out all necessary actions to rectify and eradicate water seepage from the defendant’s premises into the plaintiff’s premises, leave was granted to the plaintiff to enter the defendant’s premises and carry out remedial works therein.  

30.  I am satisfied that there has been non-compliance with the Default Judgment Order on the part of the defendant, which required the defendant to remove all causes of water seepage from the Defendant’s Property to the Plaintiff’s Property as particularized therein. I am further satisfied that the water seepage from the Defendant’s Property into the Plaintiff’s Property continues to persist. The plaintiff ought therefore to be granted leave to enter the Defendant’s Property to carry out remedial works.

Order 

31.  Accordingly, I grant an order in terms of the plaintiff’s summons, with modifications made by me at the hearing on 27 February 2026, as follows:

(1)     Leave is granted to the plaintiff, his agents and/or servants, to enter the Defendant’s Property and carry out remedial works therein for the purpose of removing all causes of water seepage from the Defendant’s Property into the Plaintiff’s Property, by replacing all defective parts of the waterproofing system (including, where applicable, pipes and membranes) in all bathrooms of the Defendant’s Property with functional and non-defective parts, within 60 days from today;

(2)     Upon completion of such remedial works at the Defendant’s Property, the defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff all costs and expenses thereby incurred, within 14 days after service upon the defendant of a written demand by the plaintiff setting out a breakdown of such costs and expenses, together with supporting proof;

(3)     A penal notice shall be granted and endorsed upon this Order; and

(4)     The costs of this application shall be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, such costs being summarily assessed at $50,000.  

32.  Lastly, I wish to thank Mr Choi for his able assistance.