LAI KWOK YIU v. LAU LAI WAH

DCCJ 2552/2024

[2026] HKDC 633

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2552 OF 2024

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

BETWEEN

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

A. Introduction

1.  This is an assessment of damages of a water seepage case.

2.  At all material times:

(1) The Plaintiff is and was the registered owner of the property situated at 2^nd Floor, No 166 Shanghai Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Plaintiff’s Property”).

(2) The Defendant is and was the registered owner of the property situated at 3^rd Floor, No 168 Shanghai Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Defendant’s Property”).

(3) No 166 Shanghai Street is and was adjacent to and adjoining No 168 Shanghai Street.

(4) The Plaintiff’s Property is and was located directly below the Defendant’s Property.

3.  In about March 2023, it was discovered that water started to leak or seep through the floor of the Defendant’s Property to the ceilings and walls of the bathrooms of the Plaintiff’s Property.

4.  The present action was commenced by Plaintiff against the Defendant on 14 May 2024 for damages arising out of the said water seepage on the basis of nuisance, negligence, breach of deed of mutual covenant and breach of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap 344).

5.  Given no notice of intention to defend had been filed, interlocutory judgment was entered against the Defendant on 2 July 2024, leaving damages to be assessed.

6.  The Defendant was unrepresented and did not appear at the hearing for assessment of damages. Having considered the affirmation of service filed on behalf of the Plaintiff on 3 February 2026, I was satisfied that the Defendant had been duly notified of these proceedings and the hearing of the assessment of damages. Therefore, the hearing was proceeded in her absence.

B. The Plaintiff’s Case

7.  Since about 20 June 2021, the Plaintiff’s Property had been rented to a Mr Law as tenant (“Tenant”).

8.  After the discovery of the water seepage, in about March 2023, the Plaintiff engaged a contractor called華令水電渠務工程to find out the source of water seepage, incurring HK$8,600 (“Inspection”). The Plaintiff also engaged another contractor called Natural Decoration Company Limited to carry out renovation works in the bathrooms of the Plaintiff’s Property, incurring HK$52,300 (“Renovation Works”).

9.  The Tenant asked for rental reduction because of the seepage and the Renovation Works for the period from March 2023 to September 2023. The total rental reduction given to him by the Plaintiff was HK$17,700 (“Loss of Rental”).

10.  The Plaintiff therefore claimed damages for the above items against the Defendant for a total sum of HK$78,600.

C. Analysis

11.  At the hearing, the Plaintiff adopted his witness statement in full. He answered questions from the Court directly. His evidence was unchallenged. I find him a credible witness. I accept his evidence in full.

12.  I will deal with the three items of damages one by one.

13.  As regards the claim for the Inspection:

(1) The claim for pre-action surveyor fee for ascertaining the source of seepage is recoverable: Yik Yuen Ling v Tso Wing Yan (unreported, DCCJ 813/2014, 18 October 2017), per DDJ Simon Ho, at §244. The Inspection also served the same purpose. I do not see any reason why this item will not be recoverable in the present case.

(2) The amount of HK$8,600 claimed by the Plaintiff was supported by a receipt issued by華令水電渠務工程. I find this amount reasonable having considered all the circumstances.

(3) I allow HK$8,600 for the Inspection.

14.  As regards the claim for the Renovation Works:

(1) Damages for costs of repair and reinstatement is recoverable for physical damage caused to the property by the nuisance, and so is the damages for the chattels damaged in addition: McGregor on Damages, 22^nd edition, at §40-19. The overarching principle in awarding damages is one of reasonableness.

(2) I have considered the evidence of the Plaintiff and have looked at the photos of the bathrooms of the Plaintiff’s Property. I am of the view that the Renovation Works were necessary. The amount of HK$52,300 claimed by the Plaintiff was supported by two receipts issued by Natural Decoration Company Limited. I find this amount reasonable having considered all the circumstances.

(3) I allow HK$52,300 for the Renovation Works.

15.  As regards the claim for the Loss of Rental:

(1) Rental loss is recoverable as a form of consequential loss caused by the nuisance: McGregor on Damages, 22^nd edition, at §40-30.

(2) The tenancy between the Plaintiff and the Tenant was entered into orally. The rental reduction given to the Tenant for each month for the period from March 2023 to September 2023 was evidenced by various rental receipts issued to the Tenant, which showed a total of HK$17,700 rental reduction given to him.

(3) I do not find anything unreasonable for the Tenant to have asked for rental reduction for the inconvenience caused during the period when the Renovation Works were being undertaken.

(4) I allow HK$17,700 for the Loss of Rental.

16.  As a result, I allow damages in the sum of HK$78,600 as claimed in full.

D. Disposition

17.  By reason of the foregoing, I order that:

(1) The Defendant do pay the Plaintiff damages in the sum of HK$78,600 with interest at the best lending rate of HSBC plus 1% from the date of writ (i.e. 14 May 2024) until the date of this judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until full payment.

(2) The Defendant do forthwith pay costs of and occasioned by the assessment of damages, inclusive of the hearing for the assessment of damages, summarily assessed at HK$80,000.