MEDFORD GARDEN LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SHUI KI INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

HCA 1666/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1666 OF 2022

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  The Plaintiff is the registered owner of 16^th Floor of Shui Ki Industrial Building, being the top floor of the building. There were water seepage issues on the ceiling of the Plaintiff’s premises. On 28 March 2023, K Yeung J made an order by consent that (1) a single joint expert be appointed to conduct tests to ascertain the causes of water seepage and to propose remedial works, and (2) the Defendant would resolve to carry out requisite works and all repair, maintenance, remedial measures and improvements. Two reports were prepared by the expert and were issued in March and October 2024.

2.  The Plaintiff complained that there was delay in the commencement of remedial works. On 21 January 2025, the Plaintiff issued a summons (“January 2025 Summons”) to compel the Defendant to, amongst other things, carry out the requisite works as soon as possible. This is the first of the two summonses before the court today.

3.  On 12 February 2025, an EGM of the Defendant took place and the Defendant amongst other things resolved to engage a contractor to effect repair works to the waterproofing membrane of the roof of the building. It is common ground that such works commenced on 14 March 2025 and were completed on or about 31 October 2025.

4.  It does not appear that the Plaintiff took any steps in the course of 2025 in relation to its January 2025 Summons after that summons was taken out in January 2025.

5.  On 16 February 2026, the Plaintiff issued a summons to amend the January 2025 Summons (“Amendment Summons”) to spell out the specific works that it considers needed to be further carried out, or alternatively to direct the single joint expert to issue another report as to what further remedial works should be carried out. This is the second summons listed before the court today.

6.  In the Plaintiff’s skeleton submissions filed shortly before the hearing, the Plaintiff submitted that the court should make directions to direct the single joint expert to inspect the current state of the roof and confirm whether there is still water seepage problem, and issue a further report to opine on whether the works done were in compliance with his recommendations in his earlier report. The Plaintiff submits that I should also give leave to it to amend the January 2025 Summons, give directions for the filing of further evidence, and adjourn the amended January 2025 Summons to a date to be fixed for substantive argument.

7.  For the reasons which I am about to give, I am not persuaded that I should accede to give the directions sought by the Plaintiff.

8.  First, there is no dispute that the works on the roof of the building were completed at the end of October 2025. The Plaintiff complains that such works did not include any repair works to the waterproofing layer to the parapet walls on the roof. But the Plaintiff knew about this since February 2025. As was acknowledged in the 6^th affirmation filed on behalf of the Plaintiff, it was apparent from the minutes of the EGM held on 12 February 2025 that no approval was granted for carrying out the repair works to the waterproofing layer to the parapet walls on the roof. No explanation has been given by the Plaintiff as to why it did not raise any queries with the Defendant, whether on the scope of the works or generally, before or during the time when the remedial works were being carried out. In my view, it is irregular for the Plaintiff to let the Defendant complete the remedial works first, and then ask the court to give directions on the scope and propriety of such remedial works. Leaving aside that such an approach is illogical and not cost-effective, the validity of the 10-year warranty for the remedial work given by the contractor may be affected by the steps now proposed by the Plaintiff. In these circumstances, I believe it is too late for the Plaintiff to now seek the purported compliance of paragraph 5 of the Order of K Yeung J dated 28 March 2023.

9.  Further, there is no evidence that there is further water seepage problem to the Plaintiff’s premises after the waterproofing remedial works on the roof were completed in October 2025. In a report prepared by a surveyor engaged on behalf of the Plaintiff, it was said that some cracks were found at the new screed layer when the surveyor inspected the roof. The Plaintiff submits that these cracks give rise to serious concern about future seepage. But that submission is entirely speculative. There is nothing before the court to suggest that the remedial works already carried out by the Defendant are ineffective against the water seepage issues previously encountered by the Plaintiff. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to make any further directions in relation to the future conduct of the parties, which may turn out to be inconsequential as far as the water seepage problems are concerned.

10.  Moreover, the Plaintiff’s suggested approach of directing the parties to go back to the single joint expert for an opinion on the current state of affairs will inevitably involve additional costs to be incurred. In the light of the Plaintiff’s inactivity when the remedial works on the roof were being carried out in 2025, and the fact that the Plaintiff has not identified any water seepage problem in its premises since the completion of the remedial works, I do not think it is justified to make all the owners bear such additional costs now.

11.  For these reasons, I decline to make any further directions as suggested by the Plaintiff. I also decline to give leave to the Plaintiff to amend the January 2025 Summons.

12.  I will now hear the parties on what to do with the January 2025 Summons and costs.

[Submissions on the January 2025 Summons and costs]

13.  The Plaintiff accepts that the January 2025 Summons is “spent”. I dismiss the January 2025 Summons with no order as to costs.

14.  I also make an order that the costs of and occasioned by the Amendment Summons are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant to be summarily assessed.

[Submissions on summary assessment]

15.  Adopting a broad-brush approach, I summarily assess the Defendant’s costs at HK$80,000.