CHAU YUET YING, the Administratrix to the Estate of CHAU AU SHU AND ANOTHER v. NGAI KANG CHING and KWOK LING FONG

DCCJ 2762/2023

[2026] HKDC 1752

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2762 OF 2023

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

INTRODUCTION

1.  This is an assessment of damages in a water leakage case.  On 13 June 2024, the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs (collectively “the Plaintiffs”) obtained an interlocutory judgment against the defendants (collectively “the Defendants”) with damages to be assessed.  The present assessment of damages is held in pursuance of the said interlocutory judgment.

2.  The Plaintiffs commenced the present proceedings against the Defendants on 5 July 2023.  The action is based on (1) negligence, and (2) nuisance.  According to the Statement of Claim, the Plaintiffs claimed damages under the heads of (1) costs of removal of the said debris and stains on the ceiling and walls of the affected areas, (2) costs of repairing the surface concrete of the said ceiling and walls of the affected areas, (3) contractor’s charge for the works in (1) and (2) above, (4) costs of repainting the affected areas, and (5) loss of rental income.

3.  At the assessment hearing, the Plaintiffs were represented by Mr John Ip of Messrs John Ho & Tsui.  The Defendants, who were not legally represented, did not attend the hearing.  Upon perusing the Affirmation of Chan Wing Keung filed herein on 18 March 2026, I was satisfied that the Defendants have been duly notified of the present assessment of damages, as well as this assessment hearing.  Accordingly, I decided to proceed with the hearing in the Defendants’ absence.

4.  At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that a written decision would be handed down. This is my decision.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

5.  At the assessment hearing, the Plaintiffs called Mr Chan Andrew Kam Ming (hereinafter “Mr Chan”) as the Plaintiffs’ factual witness.  Mr Chan is the husband of the 2^nd plaintiff and the brother-in-law of the 1^st plaintiff.  According to his evidence, since around the end of 2020, he has been authorized by the Plaintiffs to manage and take charge of all the affairs and matters relating to and affecting the subject property as defined below.  He adopted his witness statement filed on 27 February 2025 and his supplemental witness statement filed on 24 December 2025 as examination in chief.  He also answered questions raised by me at the hearing.  His evidence was unchallenged.  On the whole, I find nothing inherently improbable about his evidence.  I accept his evidence to be truthful and reasonable.

6.  In this assessment of damages, the Plaintiffs rely on the expert report on quantum prepared by Mr Wong Shun Tai, Stewart of Proficient Surveyors & Co dated 22 April 2025 (“Quantum Report”) and the valuation report prepared by Hui Wai Chun, Raymond of Midland Surveyors Limited (“Valuation Report”) respectively.

7.  After perusing Mr Wong’s curriculum vitaes annexed to the Quantum Report, I am satisfied that he is qualified to give expert opinion in respect of the remedial works that needed to be carried out, and the costs of such works.  In relation to the Valuation Report, I am also satisfied that Mr Hui is qualified to give expert opinion in respect of the valuation of the rental income. On the whole, I accept the expert opinion rendered by Mr Wong and Mr Hui to be both plausible and reliable.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE

8.  The Plaintiffs are the registered owners of a property known as 2^nd Floor, No 139 Sai Wan Ho Street, Hong Kong (“Plaintiffs’ Premises”), as tenants-in-common.  The Plaintiff’s Premises were further divided into three rooms, namely Rooms A, B and C. The Defendants are the joint tenants of the flat situated at the 3^rd floor of the same building immediately above the Plaintiffs’ Premises (“Defendants’ Premises”).

9.  In early 2021, the Plaintiffs discovered water leakage or seepage and foul and unsanitary substances emanating or discharging from the Defendants’ Premises into the Plaintiffs’ Premises.  Despite oral complaints made to the Defendants and the Joint Office of the Buildings Department/Food and Environment Hygiene Department, the water seepage problem persisted.

10.  In around July 2022, the Plaintiffs engaged a contractor Win Key Workshop Limited (“Win Key”) to perform remedial works in the Plaintiffs’ Premises. The works were completed in or around March 2023 and the Plaintiffs paid the costs of HK$47,000 for the remedial works.

11.  On around 2 October 2023, the Plaintiffs were able to let out Room B at a monthly rent of HK$5,800. However, the Plaintiffs were unable to let out the other two rooms, namely Room A and C, due to the unsightly and/or tarnished condition thereof.

EXPERT OPINION

12.  According to the Quantum Report, the total costs of remedial works done in relation to the damages as observed on 7 and 9 April 2025 (which were the dates of the survey set out in the Quantum Report) amounted to HK$47,000. The details per quotation of Win Key dated 7 July 2022 are as follows:-

Item No	Works	Claimed Amount
1.	Demolition of the gypsum boards false ceiling	$4,000
2.	Supply and installation of gypsum board false ceiling	$10,000
3.	Replastering and repainting ceiling and walls of the 2nd Floor	$15,000
4.	Removal of debris	$3,000
5.	Remedying work on the beams of the 2nd Floor	$15,000
	Sub-total:	$47,000

13.  The Quantum Report also stated that further damages were done to the Plaintiffs’ Premises because of the persistent water seepage problem, and he estimated that further remedial works would cost HK$35,000.  However, this amount is not being claimed by the Plaintiffs, according to the opening and closing submissions of the Plaintiffs.

Valuation Expert

14.  In respect of the valuation of the rental income, although Mr Wong in the Quantum Report also commented on those matters, it appears that Mr Wong’s expertise does not lie in this area. The Plaintiffs adduced and relied on the Valuation Report, prepared by Mr Hui, on the valuation of the monthly market rents. According to Mr Hui’s opinion, the monthly market rents (inclusive of management fees, rates and government rent) of the Plaintiffs’ Premises as at 26 February 2026 (the date of the 2^nd Report) and free from all legal encumbrances disregarding all its unauthorized structures are:-

	Subject Properties	Monthly Market Rents
1.	Room A of the Plaintiff’s Premises	$5,900
2.	Room C of the Plaintiff’s Premises	$9,800

DISCUSSION

15.  According to the opening submissions, the Plaintiffs seek to claim the following heads of damages in this assessment hearing:-

(a)  Costs of remedial works; and

(b)  Loss of rental income.

16.  I will deal with these heads of damages in the same order.

(1)   Costs of Remedial Works

17.  Damages for costs of repair and reinstatement is recoverable for physical damage caused to the property by nuisance: see McGregor on Damages (22^nd ed), para 40-019.

18.  According to the Plaintiffs, they undertook remedial works in around end of 2022 to early 2023. The actual works costed HK$47,000 according to a quotation issued by Win Key dated 7 July 2022, and a receipt for the said sum dated 23 March 2023. 

19.  On the basis of the documents, I accept that this amount of HK$47,000 had been actually paid by the plaintiffs for remedial works of damages caused by the water seepage problem. I accept Mr Wong’s expert evidence that this amount is reasonable in these circumstances and would award this amount in full.

(2)   Loss of Rental Income

20.  Loss of rents is recoverable as damages consequent upon the injury to the property by the nuisance: see McGregor on Damages (22^nd ed), para 40-030.

21.  In Mr Chan’s supplemental witness statement filed on 24 December 2025, the Plaintiffs claim for loss of rental income for 2 units, namely Room A and Room C only, as Room B has been rented out since November 2023. Further, as the Plaintiffs have not claimed any reduced rental of Room B, I shall say no more on it.

22.  Regarding the duration of loss sustained, in the said supplemental witness statement of Mr Chan, the Plaintiffs originally claimed for 55 months of loss of rental income from April 2021 to October 2025. In the closing submissions dated 25 March 2026, the Plaintiffs reduced the duration to 34 months.

23.  Having carefully considered the Valuation Report, I am satisfied that the monthly market values of Room A and C are HK$5,900 and HK$9,800 respectively as opined by the expert. However, Mr Hui in the Valuation Report only opined on the monthly market rents of the two units, without providing any views on the market conditions during the claimed period, nor any comment on the reasonableness of the length of time being claimed.

24.  I have considered all evidence including photographs filed by the Plaintiffs and annexed to the expert reports.  I am satisfied that the condition of Room A and C caused by the Defendant’s nuisance at the material times rendered the flat unfit for occupation. I find as a matter of fact that the Plaintiff would not be able to lease the Plaintiffs’ Premises out unless some remedial works were to be carried out by the Defendants in the Defendant’s Premises to stop the nuisance.

25.  The nuisance was discovered by the Plaintiffs in March 2021 and the Defendants were informed of the same at least by 15 June 2021 when a Nuisance Notice was issued and served against the Defendants. Furthermore, a Notice of Termination of Water Supply was served by the Water Supplies Department on the Defendants, and on 23 December 2022, the Defendants were further served by the Plaintiffs’ solicitors a formal letter demanding remedial actions to be taken to abate the water seepage. I find that the Defendants were fully informed and aware of the nuisance caused by them to the Plaintiffs’ Premises.

26.  Even taking the last date of the abovementioned notifications to the Defendants (ie 23 December 2022), the matter had been knowingly ignored by the Defendants for around 39 months up until the date of the assessment of damages hearing. As the Plaintiffs only claim for 34 months as per their latest position in the closing submissions, I find it reasonable and would award the amount for loss of rental income in the total sum of HK$533,800.00, with breakdown as follows:-

(1)  Loss of rental income for Room A: HK$5,900 x 34 months = HK$200,600.00

(2)  Loss of rental income for Room C: HK$9,800 x 34 months = HK$333,200.00

CONCLUSION

27.  Accordingly, I would assess the Plaintiffs’ damages in the present action at the sum of HK$580,800.00, with breakdown as follows:-

Item No	Description	Awarded Amount
(a)	Costs of Remedial Works	$47,000.00
(b)	Loss of rental income	$533,800.00
	Sub-total:	$580,800.00 =========

INTERESTS

28.  Interest is sought in the statement of claim dated 5 July 2023. I therefore grant interest of the awarded sum from the date of the Writ of Summons (ie 5 July 2023) to the date of this assessment at 1% above HSBC’s best lending rate, and thereafter at judgment rate to the date of full payment.

COSTS

29.  Costs should follow the event in the present case.  I order that the Defendants should pay the Plaintiffs’ costs of these assessment proceedings, including all costs reserved, to be assessed summarily. The 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs shall file and serve their statement of costs within 14 days from the date hereof. The defendants shall file and serve their objections (if any) within 14 days thereafter.