HO KIN CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. TSUI HOK KWAN STANLEY AND ANOTHER

DCCJ4292/2007

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4292 OF 2007

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES 

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

1.  The plaintiffs claim against the defendants for damages suffered due to leakages of water from the defendants’ property on the 2nd floor of Block K, Cheung Sing Villa, 91A Yeung Uk Tsuen, Yuen Long, New Territories, (“the defendants’ property”), into the plaintiffs’ property on the floor below, i.e. 1st floor of Block K, Cheung Sing Villa, between April 2007 and July 2007.

2.  Interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendants in default of acknowledgement of service on 12 November 2007.  Today’s hearing is on the assessment of damages.

3.  In June 2007, the 1^st plaintiff obtained a surveyor’s report of the damage caused by water leakages at various parts of the ceiling of his property.  In support of his claim, the PWL surveyors’ report was produced at the hearing by Mr Poon who had prepared the report.  There is a further report by Mr Mathew Chan on the RITS test, the infrared tests.  Both confirmed leakages at the ceiling of the plaintiffs’ property causing damage to the concrete slabs and with peeling paintworks, stains to the ceiling.  Mr Poon’s survey report further set out the repair work to be done and the costs required.  He admitted repair costs included daily wages of workmen based on the government released monthly wage figures for construction works at the time of the report.

4.  According to Mr Ho, the 1^st plaintiff, the occupier of the defendants’ property left the property in around May.  He believed the water mains were turned off and therefore the leakages had since then completely stopped. 

5.  As the defendants were absent at the assessment hearing, the survey reports and the estimated repair costs of the PWL Surveyors were unchallenged.  No evidence had been called to contradict the surveyors’ reports and the repair costs.  On this basis, I allow the plaintiffs’ claim of $126,139.50 in full and $12,000 for the two expert reports, with costs against the defendants, to be taxed, if not agreed.