TAM CHUN FAI, suing by his lawful attorney, LEUNG TSZ KWAN v. LING YUK SING

DCCJ 516/2022

[2026] HKDC 1234

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 516 OF 2022

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

BETWEEN

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

1.  This is the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant arising out of water seepage alleged to have originated from the Defendant’s flat, Flat C on the 40th Floor of Tower 5, Metro City, Phase I, 1 Wan Hang Road, Tseung Kwan O, Sai Kung, New Territories, Hong Kong (“Flat 40C” or “the Defendant’s Premises”), which affected the Plaintiff’s flat immediately below, namely Flat C on the 39^th Floor of the same building (“Flat 39C” or “the Plaintiff’s Premises”).

BACKGROUND

2.  Since 7 September 2021, Ms Leung Tsz Kwan (“Ms Leung”), the Plaintiff’s wife, has been appointed the Plaintiff’s lawful attorney in accordance with section 7 of the Powers of Attorney Ordinance, Cap 31, under a General Power of Attorney dated 7 September 2021. All acts done by Ms Leung in these proceedings are thus done in that capacity and on behalf of the Plaintiff.

3.  Since 26 November 2021, the Plaintiff has been the registered owner of Flat 39C.

4.  The Defendant, Mr Ling Yuk Sing (“Mr Ling”), was at all material times the registered owner and occupier of Flat 40C, which is situated directly above Flat 39C. Mr Ling is conversant in English and made his written and oral submissions in English.

5.  Both Flat 39C and Flat 40C are subject to the Deed of Mutual Covenant and Management Agreement of Metro City dated 26 April 1997, registered in the Land Registry by Memorial No SK275563 (“the DMC”), and thus binding on the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

6.  The following provisions of the DMC are relevant to the Plaintiff's claim:

(a) Clause 13 — “Each Owner shall maintain in good repair and condition that part of the Estate owned by him to the satisfaction of the Manager and in such a manner as to avoid any loss, damage, nuisance or annoyance to the Owners or occupiers of any other part or parts of the Estate.”

(b) Clause 14 — “No Owner may use or permit or suffer the part of the Estate owned by him to be used for any illegal or immoral purpose nor will he do cause or permit or suffer to be done any act or thing which may be or become nuisance or annoyance to or cause damage to the other owners and occupiers for the time being. Each Owner shall comply with all the relevant by-law and regulations laid down in the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance.”

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE

7.  According to the Plaintiff, water seepage was first detected at the ceiling and walls of the bedroom of Flat 39C in about October 2020, before the Plaintiff became the registered owner [SOC, §8; Bundle A, p.8]. Since about November 2020, the previous owners of Flat 39C made numerous complaints of the water seepage to the Buildings Department/Food and Environmental Hygiene Department Joint Office (“the Joint Office”) and to the management company of Metro City. After those complaints, various tests were conducted in both Flat 39C and Flat 40C [SOC, §9; Bundle A, p 8].

8.  On 16 September 2021, the Joint Office issued a Nuisance Notice to the Defendant pursuant to section 127(1) of the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap 132), requiring him to carry out all necessary and appropriate repairs to abate the water seepage [SOC, §10; Bundle A, p 8; D/507-510]. Despite of that, the Defendant did not carry out any repairs.

9.  Since about late November 2021, after the Plaintiff became the registered owner of Flat 39C on 26 November 2021 [SOC, §1(a); Bundle A, p 4], numerous further complaints were made by the Plaintiff or his agent (ie Ms Leung) to the Defendant and to the Metro City management company [SOC, §11; Bundle A, p 9]. On 28 November 2021, the Plaintiff’s then solicitors, Messrs. Henry Chiu & Partners, wrote to the Defendant requesting him to, inter alia, rectify and stop the water seepage. There was no constructive response from the Defendant [SOC, §21; Bundle A, p 13; D/473-475].

10.  On 30 November 2021, the Plaintiff instructed a building engineer, Mr Chung Wai Hoi Vincent (“Mr Chung”) of香港驗樓及結構診斷有限公司 (“香港驗樓”) to conduct an inspection of Flat 39C. A receipt was issued on that date [D/607] and the first survey report was prepared on 21 January 2022 [D/537-606]. Despite no access was gained to Flat 40C, it was concluded that the water seepage in Flat 39C originated from Flat 40C [SOC, §12; Bundle A, p 9].

11.  Water seepage has persisted up to the present date [SOC, §13; Bundle A, p 9; Plaintiff’s Closing, §§13-15].

THE DEFENDANT’S CASE

12.  The crux of Mr Ling’s case is his theory that all damage to both Flat 39C and Flat 40C was caused by “vandalists or strangers” — specifically, persons residing in or associated with Flat 41C, whom he identifies as former senior police officers, under whose surveillance Mr Ling has lived since about 1997. It was further alleged that those responsible were related to members of the triad society “Sun Yee On” [Defence Counterclaim, §1; Bundle A, pp 39-40; Defendant’s Answer, §6; Bundle A, pp 63-65; Defendant’s Opening, §§33-34, 38, 40].

13.  In his Answer to the Further and Better Particulars, Mr Ling elaborated on this theory, asserting that persons from Flat 41C — comprising police officers and triad members who believed Mr Ling owed them money — had formed an alliance to force him into conducting renovation works to Flat 40C, which would present the opportunity for those bad actors to gain access to Flat 40C and conduct illegal searches. [Defendant’s Answer, §6; Bundle A, p 64].

14.  Mr Ling also referred in his Answer to scaffolding erected outside Flat 39C pursuant to a notice dated 13 April 2021 (valid to 26 April 2021) and a further notice dated 29 April 2021 (valid to 12 May 2021) [Defendant’s Answer, §4; Bundle A, p 63].

15.  Mr Ling acknowledged that when he visited Flat 39C (at the invitation of persons there including someone he called “Mr Lai”), he observed damage to the top part of the window in the toilet, which he described as a “brick bar with some cohesive tape to seal it up” appearing to have been hit by a hammer [Defendant’s Answer, §§2-3; Bundle A, pp 63-64]. This is the only concrete physical observation the Defendant identifies in support of his theory.

16.  The Defendant alleges that PW3 Mr Lai Kit Man (“Mr Lai”), who accompanied the original expert Mr Chung during the inspection of Flat 40C in or around February 2023, struck heavy blows inside Flat 40C, damaged his property, fabricated test results, stole his coins, and was in the pay of the persons at Flat 41C [Defendant’s Opening, §31; Plaintiff’s Closing, §§5(b), 7]. The Plaintiff denies these allegations and submits that Mr Lai is an honest and credible witness [Plaintiff’s Closing, §7].

17.  The Defendant also complains that the Plaintiff’s wife, Ms Leung, lacks the locus standi to sue on behalf of the Plaintiff.

LOCUS STANDI

18.  In this action, the Plaintiff is the registered owner of 39C. Ms Leung is not suing in her own name. Instead, she sues as an attorney for the Plaintiff. It is trite that a donee of a general power of attorney under section 7 may do anything the donor can lawfully do: Multi-More Industries Ltd v Tung Hoo Fai & Anor [1991] 2 HKC 261, at 267H:

“On its plain meaning, s7 provides for two types of general powers of attorney, ie first, a power of attorney in the form set out in the Schedule and, second, a power of attorney in some other form to the like effect but expressed to be made under the Ordinance. Both are plainly and equivocally given the same effect; they operate to confer on the donee authority to do on behalf of the donor anything which he can lawfully do by an attorney. …”

19.  The Plaintiff has adduced into evidence a copy of a General Power of Attorney executed by the Plaintiff, dated 7 September 2021, appointing his wife Ms Leung as his attorney. As such, I do not consider there to be any justifiable challenge to Ms Leung’s authority to act on the Plaintiff’s behalf in these proceedings.

ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

20.  The following issues fall for determination:

(a) Whether there was and is water seepage/leakage at Flat 39C;

(b) Whether such water seepage/leakage originates from Flat 40C;

(c) Whether the Defendant is liable for breach of DMC, breach of common law duty/negligence, nuisance, and/or breach of statutory duty;

(d) If liability is established, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief; and

(e) If liability is established, the quantum of damages.

THE APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Onus of proof

21.  As noted by the Court of Appeal in Hui Ling Ling v Sky Field Development Limited (unreported, CACV 122/2012, 22 March 2013) at §42:

“42. Firstly, as the recorder has mentioned in paras 23 and 24 of his judgment, it is well established there is no presumption that water leakage was necessarily caused by the flat above, and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply in the present case. It is not for the defendant to identify the source of leakage or to prove it did not come from the defendant’s flat. The onus is on the plaintiff to establish that the leakage originated from the defendant’s flat.”

Private nuisance

22.  The law of private nuisance is well established and set out in Sum Wing Sung v Kwok Wing Yan Vivian [2021] HKDC 766, Ocean Allied Limited v Hui Sze Kuen [2022] HKDC 760 and 張秀玲及吳炳漢 對 鄭禮莊, (unreported, (CACV 268/1998, 9 April 1999). In gist, the plaintiff has to prove that he has a right to possess or use the land concerned (usually as owner or tenant), the defendant has caused an interference with the plaintiff’s use or enjoyment of the land, and that interference is substantial and unreasonable.

23.  It is noteworthy that the Court in Sum Wing Sung v Kwok Wing Yan Vivian observed at §67:

“67. I am of the view that given the leakage was not caused by any third party, the defendant in the present case should be taken as if she had created the nuisance by her failure to maintain the pipes and keep them in good repair. Hence this is not an “adoption of nuisance” case, and “knowledge” on the part of the defendant is not a relevant matter to be taken into account.”

Breach of DMC

24.  In John So & Anor v Lau Hon Man & Ors [1993] 2 HKC 356, the Court of Appeal dealt with the following clause in the DMC at 358E, which is similar to the one in the present case:

“10. Each party hereto hereby convenants with the other as follows:-

(c) Not to use his part of the said Building for any illegal or immoral purposes nor do or permit anything therein or thereupon which may create unnecessary noise or may be a nuisance or annoyance to or may cause damage or inconvenience to the other occupiers of the said Building.”

25.  After considering this clause, the Court held at 363D:

“By allowing their pipe to fall into disrepair with the result that water escaped to the appellants’ flat, the respondents were in clear breach of their obligation under s 10(c) of the DMC not to permit anything in their flat which might be a nuisance to other occupiers of the building, escape of water from one person’s premises to another’s being a classic instance of nuisance in the eyes of the law.”

FACTUAL FINDINGS

26.  At trial, a total of 5 witnesses were called:-

(a) PW1, expert witness Ms Pamela Lam (“Ms Lam”), giving opinion on the market rental of Flat 39C;

(b) PW2, expert witness Mr Hau Tung Ngai (“Mr Hau”), giving opinion on the source of water seepage at Flat 39C and on costs of repair;

(c) PW3, factual witness Mr Lai Kit Man (“Mr Lai”), a colleague of the Plaintiff’s original expert Mr Chung;

(d) PW4, factual witness Ms Leung (the wife of the Plaintiff); and

(e) The Defendant himself.

27.  I shall deal with their evidence in turn.

PW2 – Mr Hau Tung Ngai

28.  Mr Hau is a Registered Professional Engineer (Civil) holding qualifications including MBA, BSc in Construction Engineering & Management, membership of the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (Civil), and registration as a Grade 1 Licensed Plumber (WWO) with the Water Supplies Department [Expert Report of Mr Hau, C/158]. I accept Mr Hau’s expertise.

29.  Pursuant to the Court’s order dated 16 October 2024, Mr Hau was appointed as the Plaintiff's expert in place of the original expert, Mr Chung, who unfortunately passed away in 2024.

30.  Mr Hau conducted inspections of Flat 39C and Flat 40C on 31 October 2024 and a follow-up inspection of Flat 39C on 27 November 2024. He employed multiple testing methodologies including visual inspection, conductivity moisture measurement, infrared scanning, microwave moisture scanning, colour dye testing, and water meter monitoring [Expert Report, §§3.1–3.6].

31.  Mr Hau’s principal findings were as follows:

(a) Flat 39C bedroom A had been and remained affected by water seepage;

(b) When water is used on the floor of the bathroom or in the bathtub of Flat 40C, or when water molecules come into contact with the floor of the bathroom or the bathtub of Flat 40C, water seeps in and accumulates at the bottom of the bathtub; [Expert Report, §6.2.2(v), C/205]

(c) The bathtub in the bathroom of Flat 40C is adjacent to (the ceiling of) Room A of Flat 39C; [Expert Report, §6.2.2(v), C/205, 216 and 217]

(d) This is supported by microwave moisture scanning conducted at Flat 40C which indicates water migration from Flat 40C's floor slab downward into Flat 39C's ceiling; [Expert Report, §6.2.2(iii)]

(e) As to the source of the seepage, Mr Hau also systematically excluded alternative causes. He excluded rainwater seeping through external walls (there had been only 1.0mm of rainfall in the preceding 14 days, yet moisture readings remained elevated) [Expert Report, §6.2.1(i)]. He excluded adjoining units, public pipes, and the flat above (Flat 41C or higher), noting that the ceilings of Flat 40C showed no dripping or downward seepage from above, and that any seepage from Flat 41C would logically have manifested more severely in the Flat 40C ceiling first [Expert Report, §6.2.1(ii)–(iv)].

32.  Mr Hau then concluded that the water seepage originated from the defective fresh water facilities and the defective waterproofing system of the bathroom of Flat 40C [Expert Report, §§6.2.2 [C/204-206], 7.2]. This conclusion was consistent with the earlier findings of Mr Chung in his 2021 and 2023 reports [Expert Report, §6.2.2].

33.  On the absence of colour dye at Flat 39C after the ponding tests, Mr Hau noted that this was not inconsistent with his findings, explaining by reference to the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors' guidelines that colour dye tests do not always successfully reveal the source of seepage [Expert Report, §6.2.2(vi)].

34.  Mr Hau further observed that although the degree of seepage had somewhat improved compared to the conditions recorded in Mr Chung’s 2023 inspection, this improvement was not attributable to any repair works undertaken by the Defendant — who had carried out no remedial works at all — but rather to repairs carried out to Flat 39C itself, and to the Defendant apparently reducing or ceasing use of water in the bathroom before the inspection date [Expert Report, §§6.3.1–6.3.2]. In this regard, Mr Hau noted that the Defendant was overheard saying on the day of the inspection that he could finally shower and wash his hair that evening, as he had not done so for several days [Expert Report, §6.3.2(iii)].

35.  The Defendant did not adduce any expert evidence of his own to challenge Mr Hau’s opinion. During cross-examination, the Defendant did not appear to object to the reasoning of Mr Hau based on the examination and test results leading to his expert opinion; rather, the Defendant's complaint was directed at PW3 Mr Lai, who had assisted in carrying out the inspections [Plaintiff's Closing, §5(b)].

36.  Mr Hau’s analysis and conclusions are logical, and I fully accept his evidence.

PW3 – Mr Lai Kit Man

37.  PW3, Mr Lai, is a building inspection technician with 香港驗樓and has over ten years’ experience conducting colour dye tests. He assisted the Plaintiff's original expert, Mr Chung, in carrying out water seepage inspections at Flat 39C on 3 February and 11 March 2023, and at Flat 40C on 3 February 2023.

38.  The Defendant made a series of serious allegations against Mr Lai, each of which Mr Lai denied. In short, Mr Lai’s evidence was:

(a) he carried no hammer and none was required for the non-destructive testing specified by Mr Chung — the sounds the Defendant heard were the inspection rod (驗樓棒) tapping the wall tiles for hollow spots and the manual pumping of a spray bottle (噴壺);

(b) he did not damage Flat 40C’s bathroom or fabricate any test result; the “green liquid” episode was in fact coloured water observed dripping from Flat 40C’s bathtub warning pipe, which he asked his colleague in Flat 39C to collect in a plastic bag and photograph so as to protect the units below;

(c) he did not steal any coins; and

(d) he did not know and had never had any contact with the owner or occupant of Flat 41C. He added that in a decade of entering private units for inspection, no client had ever accused him of causing damage or theft.

39.  Mr Lai was cross-examined by Mr Ling rigorously, but remained unshaken. I find the Defendant’s case to be inherently improbable, and there is not any cogent evidence to support the serious allegations that were made against Mr Lai. I fully accept Mr Lai’s evidence.

PW4 – Ms Leung Tsz Kwan

40.  Ms Leung stated in her witness statement that when she and the Plaintiff were considering purchasing Flat 39C, the then-owner informed them that water seepage from Flat 40C had been occurring and that complaints had already been lodged with the Joint Office, which confirmed that the seepage originated from Flat 40C. They proceeded with the purchase in about November 2021, believing the issue would soon be resolved.

41.  Ms Leung instructed solicitors to write to the Defendant on 28 November 2021 requesting repairs, but there was no constructive response. Mr Chung was engaged and attended Flat 39C on 30 November 2021, finding the ceiling of bedroom A to be damp, and advising that repairs would be futile unless the source of seepage was first addressed.

42.  As to the letting of Flat 39C, Ms Leung gave evidence as to how the water seepage affected the rent she was able to obtain for Flat 39C, adducing the relevant tenancy agreements supported by contemporaneous documentation to which I attach full weight. The relevant facts will be summarised later.

43.  Ms Leung denied all allegations of vandalism or conspiracy made by the Defendant against the Plaintiff or any person associated with the Plaintiff. I consider Ms Leung to be a truthful witness and I accept her evidence.

The Defendant

44.  The Defendant, Mr Ling, appeared in person throughout the proceedings.

45.  The essence of the Defendant's evidence was that both Flat 39C and Flat 40C had been damaged by vandalism carried out by persons associated with Flat 41C — specifically, retired senior police officers and triad members of the “Sun Yee On” society — who had allegedly been conducting surveillance on him from Flat 41C since about 1997. He claimed that these persons, working together with the operator of a shop called “Shing Kee” on the ground floor of the estate, had systematically damaged the external walls of his flat from all four sides in order to force him to carry out renovation works, during which an illegal search of his flat could be conducted.

46.  The Defendant’s case is inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence. The serious allegation regarding a number of people conspiring to gain entry to his flat and conduct an illegal search is completely unsubstantiated.

47.  During cross-examination, the Defendant declined to specify the suspected crimes for which he had allegedly been under police surveillance. Further, he offered no explanation as to why the owner of Flat 41C would have permitted the Police and/or triad members to use that flat for such a prolonged period.

48.  I have no hesitation in preferring the evidence of the Plaintiff’s witnesses over that of the Defendant’s.

49.  Regarding the Defendant’s belief that the external walls of both flats had been damaged, which was the cause of the water seepage to both Flat 39C and 40C, the Defendant did not adduce any evidence, let alone expert evidence, to support his contention that the external walls were the source of the seepage. I reject such a contention.

PW1 – Ms Pamela Lam

50.  Ms Lam was granted leave to give expert evidence on rental valuation. She opines in her valuation report dated 21 March 2023 [C/132-152] that market rental values of Flat 39C were: HK$14,100 per month as at 15 January 2022 and HK$14,000 per month as at 23 January 2023.

51.  Her evidence is not challenged under cross-examination and I accept it in full.

CONCLUSION ON LIABILITY

52.  Having considered the evidence as a whole, I have come to the conclusion that the Plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities that the water seepage affecting Flat 39C originated from Flat 40C, and it was due to the Defendant’s failure to maintain the condition of Flat 40C that caused such seepage into Flat 39C. Such continued interference to the enjoyment of Flat 39C is both substantial and unreasonable. As such, I find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for nuisance and breach of the DMC.

DAMAGES AND RELIEF

53.  The Plaintiff claims general damages, repair costs, pre-action expert fees, loss of rental income, continuing monthly rental loss, and injunctive relief.

General Damages

54.  General damages for inconvenience and distress are recoverable in nuisance even where the plaintiff does not personally occupy the affected property: McGregor on Damages, 22^nd edition, §6-010; Wen Shek Tun and Anor v Chan Wai Fong and Anor [2022] HKDC 856, at §§42-43.

55.  HK$30,000 in general damages has been awarded in comparable cases involving landlords who did not personally occupy the affected flat: Chu Cheung Cheung and Anor v The IO of Provident Centre and Others [2024] HKDC 1899, at paras 254-258; Yeung Yik Chun v Wong Lai Ming and Anor [2023] HKDC 1160, at paras 164-168 [Plaintiff’s Closing, §§30-31].

56.  As such, I shall award HK$30,000 in general damages to the Plaintiff.

Special Damages – Expert Report

57.  Pre-action expert report fees are recoverable as a head of damage in water seepage cases: Chu Cheung Cheung, at paras 250-253 [Plaintiff’s Closing, §41. The Plaintiff has produced the relevant receipt at [D/607] in the sum of HK$15,800. I shall award HK$15,800 in favour of the Plaintiff accordingly.

Special Damages - Tenancy history and claim for loss of rental income

58.  The Plaintiff claims that from about early December 2021 the Plaintiff or his agent attempted to rent out Flat 39C at the prevailing market rent but was unable to do so because of the water seepage. The Plaintiff had to lower the proposed rental in order to attract tenants and was only able to conclude a tenancy on or about 15 January 2022.

59.  The Plaintiff has adduced evidence to substantiate his claim that there has been a continuous loss of rental being suffered, including the relevant tenancy agreements, the termination agreement and the supplemental agreement reducing rent.

60.  The first tenancy was concluded with Ms Kwok Chi Ling (郭芝伶) on 15 January 2022 at a discounted monthly rent of HK$8,500. [D/612]. This is to be contrasted with a market rent of HK$14,100 per month as assessed by Ms Lam [C/139] for the same period [D/608-613]. The loss for this period is (HK$14,100 - HK$8,500) x 12 = HK$67,200.

61.  That tenancy was renewed on 23 January 2023 at a monthly rent of HK$9,600 for the period from 25 January 2023 to 24 January 2026 [D/614-616]. This is to be contrasted with a market rent of HK$14,000 per month as assessed by Ms Lam [C/139] for the same period. However, the tenancy was terminated early by agreement on 24 July 2023 [D/617], as the first tenant moved out because of the continuing water seepage. The loss for this period is (HK$14,000- HK$9,600) x 6 = HK$26,400

62.  A new tenancy was concluded with Mr Kwok Hoi Ming on 15 September 2023 commencing 22 September 2023 at HK$13,800 per month [D/620–622], but the rent was soon reduced by supplemental agreement dated 28 November 2023 to HK$11,800 per month from 22 December 2023 due to the continuation of the water seepage problem and the new tenant’s complaints. The loss for this period is this HK$ 600 + 46,200 = HK$46,800.

63.  This tenancy was renewed from 22 September 2025 for a further two years at HK$11,800 per month. As of 21 January 2026, the loss of rental is (HK$ 14,000.00 - HK$11,800) x4 = HK$8,800; and thereafter HK$2,200 per month until the water leakage problem is resolved.

64.  On the basis of Ms Lam’s unchallenged market rental assessment and the actual rents received, the rental loss amounted to HK$149,200 up to 21 January 2026, and HK$2,200 per month thereafter until the necessary repair work has been done by the Defendant.

Special damages – costs of repairs

65.  Following the departure of the first tenant, the Plaintiff carried out repair works to Flat 39C in or around August 2023, at a cost of HK$33,000 [D/618–619]. The quotation dated 25 July 2023 and receipt dated 16 August 2023 from Shing Ki Metal & Painting was produced to support this claim.

66.  Mr Hau has assessed the costs of further repair at Flat 40C at HK$15,700 [C/211–212]. I consider this sum to be reasonable.

67.  As such, the costs of repair necessitated by the water seepage from Flat 40C to Flat 39C amount to HK$48,700.

68.  In summary, the Plaintiff is entitled to the following damages:-

(a)	General damages	HK$30,000
(b)	Loss of rental up to 21st January 2026	HK$149,200
(c)	Repair costs incurred in August 2023	HK$33,000
(d)	Future repair costs	HK$15,700
(e)	Pre-action expert report fees	HK$15,800
		___________
	TOTAL:	HK$243,700
		==========

Injunctive relief

69.  I accept Ms Leung’s evidence that water seepage at bedroom A of Flat 39C still exists. As such, I shall grant a mandatory injunction that the Defendant shall do all necessary repairs at the bathroom of Flat 40C, including the floor drain and the pipes connected thereto, and the waterproofing layer/system, so as to cause the stoppage of water leakage to Flat 39C.

CONCLUSION

70.  For the above reasons, I shall make the following orders:-

(a) The Defendant shall within 3 months from today do all necessary repairs at the bathroom of Flat 40C, including the floor drain and the pipes connected thereto, and the waterproofing layer/system, so as to bring about the stoppage of water leakage to Flat 39C.

(b) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff HK$243,700 as damages.

(c) The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff loss of rental income at the monthly sum of HK$2,200 from 22^nd January 2026 onwards up to the time when the repair works to be undertaken by the Defendant causing the stoppage of the water leakage from Flat 40C to Flat 39C is completed.

(d) Costs of the action be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

71.  I thank Mr Ngai and Mr Ling for their assistance.