TAM SHING ON by his next friend HO CHUI LIN v. WONG CHOW WAH AND ANOTHER

DCCJ 6961/2019

[2026] HKDC 1323

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 6961 OF 2019

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

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

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

JUDGMENT

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

A.  INTRODUCTION

1.  The Plaintiff (“PL”) is the registered owner of the 3^rd floor of Man On Building (“PL’s Premises") at No 83 Tai Po Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong. The Defendants (“Ds”) are the registered owners of the property on the 4^th floor of the same building right above PL’s Premises (“Ds’ Premises”).

2.  This is a dispute arising from the intermittent water leakage from Ds’ Premises down to PL’s Premises during the period from early 2016 to May 2023.

3.  In this action, PL claims against Ds for (a) an injunctive relief mandating them to carry out all necessary repair works to stop the water leakage and (b) damages for the loss suffered resulting from the water leakage.

B.  BACKGROUND

4.  Madam Ho Chui Lin (何翠蓮) (“Madam Ho”), who is acting as PL’s next friend in this action, is PL’s wife. Since around March 2016 – when the water leakage inside PL’s Premises started – PL and Madam Ho, together with their two sons, were living together at PL’s Premises.

5.  PL’s Premises was originally jointly owned by PL and his mother since 1980. After his mother passed, it was solely owned by PL. This action was therefore commenced by PL in 2019.

6.  In around February 2020, PL had an accident and sustained injury to his head; he then moved into an elderly home. Thereafter, Madam Ho and her younger son continued to live in PL’s Premises.

7.  In March 2024, Madam Ho continued this action as PL’s next friend.

8.  According to the floor plan disclosed by the parties, both PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises were originally designed as a single-family home with four bedrooms (marked thereon as Bedroom 1 to 4), two bathrooms (marked thereon as Bathroom 1 and 2), a combined living & dining room and a kitchen. It is to be noted that there is also a lightwell (“the Lightwell”) between Man On Building and the adjacent building at No 81 Tai Po Road. This is relevant because one of the issues between the parties is whether the water damage inside PL’s Premises was caused by rainwater leaking through the wall of the Lightwell.

9.  Regarding Ds’ Premises, shortly after Ds had acquired it on 1 April 2004, it was converted into five sub-divided units (referred to in this action as Unit 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6) with individual bathrooms inside. Therefore, since 2004, there have been five, instead of two, bathrooms inside Ds’ Premises; furthermore, they were built at different locations from the original two bathrooms shown in the original building plan.

10.  Because of the said conversion works inside Ds’ Premises, further water supply and drainage works must have been added by Ds to serve the additional and relocated bathrooms. From the photographs presented, these additional drainage systems were embedded in the raised floor of the bathrooms.

11.  The said internal alteration works have not been approved by the Building Authority.

12.  Below are the respective floor plans of PL’s Premises (showing the original layout with two bathrooms and four bedrooms – Bedrooms 1 to 4) and Ds’ Premises (after alteration, showing five separate units – Units 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6 with ensuite bathrooms):

C.  THE PARTIES’ RESPECTIVE CASE

13.  PL’s pleaded case can be briefly summarized as follows:

(1)  Since around March 2016, PL and Madam Ho have observed water seepage/leakage from the ceiling and walls of PL’s Premises. In particular, they noticed peeling of surface paint and spalling of concrete at the ceiling and beam in the bathrooms and kitchen, as well as at the living room ceiling.

(2)  In around July 2016, after they made a complaint to the Joint Office of the Buildings Department (“BD”) and Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (“FEHD”) (collectively referred to as “the Joint Office”), coloured water test was performed at Ds’ Premises. It was confirmed by the Joint Office that the water seepage/leakage in PL’s Premises originated from the drainage system in the floor inside the bathroom of Unit 1 of Ds’ Premises.

(3)  Since around July 2017, further water seepage/leakage was noticed at the walls of the bedrooms of PL’s Premises, including the area near the electric socket and the air-conditioner of Bedroom 1. PL therefore made further complaints to the Joint Office.

(4)  As the water seepage/leakage continued, the Joint Office advised PL to engage a professional surveyor to investigate the source of water leakage.

(5)  In around June 2019, PL and Madam Ho therefore engaged Sr Ir Yeung Tak Wah, Denny (楊德華) (“Mr Yeung”) of Asia View Limited (新璟有限公司) to investigate the source and cause of water leakage.

(6)  On 25 June 2019, Mr Yeung produced a Condition Survey Report and concluded that the source of water leakage inside PL’s Premises was from Ds’ Premises.

(7)  By allowing the water leakage to continue, Ds were in breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant of Man On Building (“DMC”), section 34H of the Building Management Ordinance (“BMO”), the common law duty of care (ie negligent), and, further or alternatively, caused nuisance to PL and his family.

(8)  As a result, PL suffered loss and damage, which include (a) costs of repair to PL’s Premises, (b) costs of replacement of the damaged furniture and personal belongings, (c) costs of provision of alternative accommodation during the time when repair works are carried out, (d) damages for nuisance, which are essentially damages for distress, inconvenience and discomfort.

(9)  Lastly, as the source of water leakage in Ds’ Premises has not been repaired by Ds, PL further seeks an injunctive order that Ds do carry out all necessary repair works at Ds’ Premises to stop water from leaking or seeping down to PL’s Premises.

14.  Ds do not dispute that there was water damage in PL’s Premises; their pleaded defence is that:

(1)  Sometime after having received Madam Ho’s complaint about water leakage in PL’s Premises, Ds’ mother, 陳小珊 (“Madam Chan”), arranged for a renovation contractor to inspect PL’s Premises regarding the alleged water leakage; however, Madam Ho refused to allow access to PL’s Premises. Madam Chan therefore suggested that Madam Ho make a complaint to the Joint Office.

(2)  Shortly after Ds were notified by the Joint Office that the floor drain inside the bathroom of Unit 1 was the source of water leakage into PL’s Premises, Ds engaged a renovation contractor to examine the bathroom and floor drain in question and to carry out the necessary repairs.

(3)  In about November 2016, despite there being no signs of water leakage/seepage, repairs were carried out to the entire bathroom of Unit 1, including replacing the waterproofing layer, floor tiles, the toilet bowl, and the floor drain.

(4)  Any water seepage that occurred before the repair work in November 2015 was minor and limited to the bathroom floor drain of Unit 1. After the repair work, there was no further water leakage or seepage from Ds’ Premises.

(5)  As to the alleged further water leakage and further damage to PL’s Premises after July 2017, they were not admitted by Ds, and PL was put to strict proof.

(6)  In 2017, the Joint Office conducted the following coloured water tests for the water closet, basin and floor drain: for Unit 1 (on 12 July 2017), Unit 3 (on 14 July 2017) and Unit 2 (on 19 July 2017), no colour dyes used during the tests were detected in PL’s Premises. Further, no colour dyes were detected in the samples taken during the tests.

(7)  In December 2017, ponding tests in the bathrooms of Units 1, 2 and 3 were commissioned by the Joint Office. No colour dyes were noted at the affected seepage area on 2 February 2018. It was concluded that the seepage had ceased during the investigation, and the source of leakage was uncertain.

(8)  It’s therefore clear that there was no water leakage/seepage from Ds’ Premises to PL’s Premises. Any subsequent water leakage/seepage inside PL’s Premises did not originate from Ds’ Premises nor was it caused by Ds.

(9)  The Condition Survey Report prepared by Mr Yeung and the conclusion stated therein were invalid.

(10)  Ds therefore denied they were negligent or in breach of DMC or BMO. Furthermore, Ds have not caused and/or permitted water to leak/seep from Ds’ Premises into PL’s Premises, effectively contending that they did not cause a nuisance to PL.

(11)  As to PL’s loss and damage claim, Ds put PL to strict proof as to the extent of damage to PL’s Premises prior to the repair of the floor drain in November 2016.

(12)  As to the further damage caused after November 2016, Ds denied liability.

(13)  Lastly, Ds pleaded that the amount claimed was unreasonable and PL failed to discharge its duty to mitigate his loss.

15.  It is to be noted that Ds repeatedly pleaded that the leaking drainage pipe in the floor of the bathroom of Unit 1 (found by the Joint Office under dye water test in June 2016[1]) had been repaired in November 2016. In that regard, Ds personally signed a Statement of Truth on 10 December 2020 and 14 December 2020 respectively, confirming that they believed the facts stated in their Defence were true.

16.  However, at trial, it has become clear that no repair was in fact carried out to the leaking drainage pipe in question, and the 2^nd Defendant was aware of it all along.[2]

17.  When the Defence was amended on 17 June 2024, Ds maintained the same false assertion and instructed their solicitors to sign another Statement of Truth, knowing that such allegation was false.

D.  ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES

18.  On 20 May 2025, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Issues in Dispute listing out the following issues:

(1)  Whether there was/is water seepage at PL’s Premises;

(2)  If so, the location(s) of water seepage at the PL’s Premises;

(3)  Whether Ds’ Premises was/is the source and/or cause of the water seepage;

(4)  Whether Ds are liable to PL for breach of DMC and/or breach of BMO and/or breach of general duty of care in law and duty not to cause nuisance;

(5)  If Ds are held liable to PL in full or in part: (a) whether Ds should be ordered to carry out all necessary works to rectify the water seepage; and (b) the quantum of damages payable by Ds.

19.  At trial, PL was represented by Mr Ng Man Kin of (“Mr Ng”) of Messrs Kwok, Ng & Chan. Ds were represented by Mr Justin Ismail (“Mr Ismail”) of counsel under the instruction of Messrs K.M. Lai & Li.

20.  Despite the Joint Statement of Issues, at trial, the remaining live issues between the parties were: (a) whether the source(s) of leakage were Ds’ Premises, (b) if so, whether Ds were liable for PL’s loss and damage, and (c) what is the entitlement of PL?

E.  RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES

21.  The following principles applicable to water seepage cases are well established.

(1)  There is no presumption that the source of water must come from the unit immediately above the unit affected. The plaintiff bears the burden to prove on the balance of probabilities that the source of the water seepage is from the defendant’s property: Hui Ling Ling v Sky Field Development Ltd, CACV 122/2012, unreported, 22 March 2013, at §42;

(2)  The plaintiff does not bear the burden of proving that the water seepage is not from sources (eg the external walls) other than the defendant’s property - Chau Wai Hung and Another v Lam Tak Chuen and Another [2024] HKCFI 2031, 21 August 2024, at §49;

(3)  It is not for the defendant to find out or identify the correct source of the water leakage or to prove that its origin did not come from his property;

(4)  The defendant, even not having knowledge of the exact point of leakage, would be found to have constructive knowledge of his premises being the source of water leakage if he would be able to find out by exercising reasonable diligence: Lee Woon Ping v Smart Dragon Asia Pacific Limited [2026] HKDC 754 at §28;

(5)  Once a defendant is made aware that there was water leakage, the source of which could reasonably be identified to be from his property, he has a duty to investigate, locate and repair such water leakage in a prompt and reasonable manner. The failure to take reasonable steps to nullify or abate the water leakage within a reasonable time will constitute nuisance created by the defendant, or negligence committed by the defendant. This is so even if there might be other leakage paths concurrently contributing to the seepage seen in a plaintiff’s premises: Lee Woon Ping v Smart Dragon Asia Pacific Limited [2026] HKDC 754 at §29;

(6)  Expert evidence on identifying the source of water seepage is merely providing assistance to the court and such evidence is not binding upon the court. The court can and should make its own judgment by considering all the materials available: Grand Wayfair Investment Company Limited v Chan Yung Kan, CACV 238/2013, unreported, 26 September 2014, at §§37-44;

(7)  It is legitimate for an expert to reach a conclusion on the source of water seepage without conducting any water tests but by deduction, ie by excluding other possible sources of water seepage, provided that there is factual basis from which the conclusion was reached: Leung Yung Chun & another v Chan Wing Sang & Ors [2000] 1 HKLRD 456 at §§460J–461A;

(8)  If it is proved that the source of leakage in most of the seepage areas in the plaintiff’s property is the defendant’s property, the existence of other unidentified leakage paths would not relieve the defendant from liability: 皇河實業有限公司 v Wan Chiu Yuen, DCCJ 4448/2011, unreported, 20 April 2015, at §295.

22.  In addition, I share the following observations made by the learned judge in Lee Woon Ping that,

(1)  As the investigation by the Joint Office was usually done near contemporaneously through neutral agents, due weight should be accorded to the investigation carried out by the Joint Office, absent evidence of bias; and

(2)  Ponding test using dyed water is often used by the Joint Office to establish the source of water seepage. A negative test result from a ponding test, however, is not conclusive evidence that there was no water leakage from the defendant’s premises, and it poses no bar to a plaintiff establishing liability on that defendant’s part.

23.  It is to be noted that the inconclusiveness of a negative pond test result is in line with the guidelines set out in the Professional Guide to Water Seepage Investigation, Diagnosis, Testing & Reporting in Residential Buildings (2014 edition), published by the Hong Kong Institution of Surveyors (“Professional Guide”). In that regard, Mr Ismail referred me to Rich Target Properties Ltd v Treasure Ring Ltd [2025] 3 HKLRD 344 (at [81]–[84]) and argued that, unless there is a specific factual explanation for the absence of colour dye at the leakage point, one should not dismiss a negative test result as inconclusive. I am not persuaded by this argument. The Professional Guide reflects the collective expertise and judgment of professionals with relevant experience. If the Guide concludes that a negative test result does not conclusively prove that the suspected source is not leaking, in my view, it is not for the Court to assume that an explanation for the negative result (other than the suspected source is not leaking) can always be identified.

F.  FACTUAL EVIDENCE

F1.  PL’s witness - Madam Ho

24.  Madam Ho gave evidence for PL. The following was her evidence.

25.  Madam Ho was born in 1954, aged 62 when the water leakage first occurred, and 71 at the time of trial. PL’s Premises was originally owned by PL and his mother jointly since 1980. After PL’s mother passed away, PL became the sole owner.

26.  Madam Ho is the wife of PL. At the time of the water leakage, around 2016, PL, Madam Ho and their two sons were living in PL’s Premises. In around February 2020, PL suffered a head injury in a traffic accident and thereafter moved into an elderly home. Since that time, Madam Ho and her younger son have continued to live in PL’s Premises.

27.  Back in or around May 2016, Madam Ho observed a significant water leak affecting the ceiling and walls of PL’s Premises. Consequently, the following damage occurred: (a) spalling of concrete and tiles at the ceilings and roof beams of both bathrooms and the kitchen; (b) spalling of concrete at the ceiling of the living/dining room; (c) delamination of paint on the walls; etc. Additionally, clothing stored in the wardrobe became wet and was damaged.

28.  In July 2016, Madam Ho lodged a formal complaint with the Joint Office regarding water leakage originating from Ds’ Premises. In response, the Joint Office conducted a coloured water test in Ds’ Premises and confirmed that the drainage system in Ds’ Premises was the source of the leakage.

29.  After November 2016, despite Madam Chan’s assertion that works had been carried out in the bathroom of Unit 1 to address the issue, the water seepage in PL’s Premises persisted. By July 2017, the water seepage had significantly worsened. Madam Ho annotated two separate plans to illustrate the extent of water leakage in 2016 and July 2017, which were marked as Exhibits P1 and P2, respectively. She testified that the areas affected by leakage on the walls and ceiling had increased twofold and fourfold, respectively. When asked about the volume of water leaking into PL’s Premises, she estimated it to be approximately five buckets per day.

30.  Madam Ho further explained that the leakage was intermittent, sometimes lasting around ten days, and at other times, more than twenty days. During this period, the wall surrounding the air-conditioner and the area around the electric switch were also affected; Madam Ho reported experiencing an electric shock. Out of concern for her safety, she filed a further complaint with the Joint Office.

31.  Using the telephone number provided by the Joint Office, Madam Ho contacted the owners of Ds' Premises. Madam Chan (Ds’ mother) answered the call but responded angrily and refused to communicate further. Ds also failed to respond to Madam Ho and took no action to address the water leakage issue.

32.  As water leakage inside PL’s Premises persisted, Madam Ho engaged Mr Yeung in or around June 2019 to conduct a condition survey and prepare a report. Mr Yeung completed his report on 25 June 2019 [3]. In his findings, he concluded that the water leakage in PL’s Premises originated from Ds’ Premises. He also observed significant concrete spalling inside PL’s Premises and recommended repairs to the ceiling and walls. A copy of the report was sent to Ds concurrently.

33.  On 17 and 18 March 2023, experts appointed by both parties, Mr Yeung (for PL) and Ir Wu Chi Cheung, Raymond (“Mr Wu”) (for Ds), jointly conducted water ponding tests in the five bathrooms of Ds’ Premises. Following the tests, the experts carried out a joint inspection on 6 April 2023 to determine whether any coloured water from the tests appeared at the leakage points in PL’s Premises. Madam Ho noted that, after these tests and the subsequent inspection, the water leakage gradually subsided and ultimately ceased. Only occasional condensation droplets (倒汗水) appeared on the wall of Bedroom 1 when there was a significant temperature difference. She further clarified that these droplet-shaped condensations differed from the previous water seepage, which formed a continuous flow path on the walls.

34.  Although the water leakage ceased, the watermarks caused by the previous leakage remained. The fallen concrete and exposed reinforcements in the building structure are yet to be repaired. Furthermore, the spalling concrete at the ceiling and walls of PL’s Premises continues to pose a safety risk to Madam Ho and her family.

35.  In dealing with Mr Wu’s opinion that the water damage in PL’s Premises was caused by either water condensation due to high humidity and poor ventilation or seepage of rainwater through the external wall at the Lightwell, Madam Ho further testified that the last general renovation of the building was done in 2016, no repair work was carried out to the external wall at the Lightwell in 2015, yet, after the water supply to Ds’ Premises was cut off by Ds in 2013, there was no more water leakage in PL’s Premises even during the time when typhoon signal No 10 or black rainstorm signal was hoisted. The interior of PL’s Premises remained dry.

36.  Madam Ho further said that due to lack of means, PL could not carry out the necessary repair work before he received the financial compensation from Ds.

37.  Madam Ho is not a sophisticated person. She strikes me as an honest and straightforward witness; her evidence was generally supported by contemporaneous documents. It is to be noted that there exist many photographs recording the appalling condition inside PL’s Premises. The water leakage inside PL’s Premises was not only supported by photographic records but also by the investigation and test reports commissioned by the Joint Office. At trial, Ds have not seriously disputed that there was serious water damage inside PL’s Premises.

38.  Although Madam Ho might not be entirely accurate on the amount of water leakage in 2017, when she figuratively described it as about five buckets of water per day, my overall assessment of Madam Ho’s evidence is that it was logical, reasonable and consistently with the contemporaneous documents; I therefore accept her evidence.

F2.  Investigations carried out by the Joint Office

39.  From the documents presented by the parties, it is not disputed that upon the complaint of Madam Ho, the Joint Office not only carried out investigation on the cause of water leakage, they have also commissioned external consultants to carry out inspections and tests at both PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises at different stages. Details of the work performed, and the corresponding findings are set out below:

Date	Location tested	By	Test performed	Result
18/3/2016	PL’s Premises	Joint Office (“JO”)	Moisture meter test	>35 at ceiling of kitchen, bathroom 1 and bedroom 1
30/3/2016	Ds’ Premises Bathroom (Unit 6)	JO	Colour water test	No chemical detected in sample taken from PL’s Premises
11/4/2016	Ds’ Premises Bathroom (Unit 1)	JO	Colour water test	Chemical detected in PL’s Premises; Confirmed leakage from drainage in the floor of bathroom (Unit 1)
27/5/2016	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	All the readings were >20[4]; there were areas with readings >35 at the ceiling of kitchen, bathrooms 1 & 2, and bedroom 1
29/11/2016	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	Most readings were  below 20, signifying that there was no water leaking down to PL’s Premises
24/5/2017	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	All the readings at Bedroom 2 wall were >20; some were >35; All the readings at Bedroom 1 wall were >35
12/6/2017	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	Almost all the readings in the kitchen, Bathrooms 1 & 2, and Bedrooms 1 to 3 were < 20
19/6/2017	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	All the readings in Bedrooms 2 and 3 were >35; they ranged from 37.5 to 53.9, signifying serious water leakage
30/6/2017; 6/7/2017; 14/7/2017; 22/7/2017	PL’s Premises	BD/ Savills[5]	Visual inspection	Loosen tiles with cracks noted in Bathrooms 1 & 2, and kitchen; Crack was noted at the ceiling of Bathrooms 1 & 2; Cracks were found at the beam and column of the Living Room; Bulging and cracks were noted at the wall of the bedrooms; Watermarks were found at the wall of the bedrooms
5/7/2017	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	Some of the readings in Bedroom 2 were > 20; All the readings in Bedroom 1 were > 20; some were > 35
12/7/2017	Ds’ Premises Bathroom (Unit 1)	JO	Colour water test	No chemical detected in samples taken from PL’s Premises (date of sampling is unclear)
14/7/2017	Ds’ Premises Bathroom (Unit 3)	JO	Colour water test	No chemical detected in samples taken from PL’s Premises (date of sampling is unclear)
19/7/2017	Ds’ Premises Bathroom (Unit 2)	JO	Colour water test	No chemical detected in samples taken from PL’s Premises (date of sampling is unclear)
3/8/2017	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	Most of the readings taken at the ceiling of Bedroom 1 were > 35, the highest reading was 88.6; Most of the readings taken at the wall of Bedroom 2 were > 35, the highest reading was 38.5; The readings taken at the wall of Bedroom 3 ranged from 25.2 to 41.3
5/9/2017	PL’s Premises	JO	Moisture meter test	All the readings taken at the ceiling of Bedroom 1 were way above 35 (ranged from 58.7 to 87.1) The readings taken from the wall of Bedroom 2 ranged from 13.7 to 21.8; The readings taken from the wall of Bedroom 3 ranged from 20.8 to 25.2
28/11/2017	PL’s Premises	BD/ Prudential[6]	Visual inspection/ Moisture meter test/	1.  Locations of water leakage in PL’s Premises: - ceiling of kitchen, Bathrooms 1 & 2, and Bedrooms 1 to 3, 2.  MC was equal or >35 at the ceiling of Bedrooms 1 & 2 3.  MC was under 35 at the ceiling of the kitchen, Bathrooms 1 & 2 and Bedroom 3 4.  Source of water seepage was uncertain.
29/12/2017	Ds’ Premises Bathrooms of Units 2 & 3		Water ponding test
30/12/2017	PL’s Premises/ Ds’ Premises Bathroom of Unit 1		Visual inspection/ Moisture meter test/ Water ponding test
2/2/2018	PL’s Premises		Visual inspection
14/8/2018	PL’s Premises Bedrooms 1 to 3	JO	Moisture meter test	At the ceiling of Bedroom 1 – MC readings ranged from 27.9 to 70.1; On the wall of Bedroom 2 – MC readings ranged from 19.3 to 20.4; On the wall of Bedroom 3 – MC readings ranged from 19.7 to 39.4
20/8/2018	PL’s Premises Bedrooms 1 to 3	JO	Moisture meter test	At the ceiling of Bedroom 1 – MC readings ranged from 32.1 to 57.7; On the wall of Bedroom 2 – MC readings ranged from 20.4 to 28.3; On the wall of Bedroom 3 – MC readings ranged from 20.6 to 35.8
6/3/2019	PL’s Premises At ceiling, bedroom wall and near air- conditioner	JO	Moisture meter test	At the ceiling – MC readings ranged from 8.9 to 19.6; On the wall of bedrooms – MC readings ranged from 11.4 to 16.7; Near air-conditioner – MC readings ranged from 8.4 to 19.9

40.  From the inspection and test reports produced at the time, the following are noted:

(1)  The moisture content measurements taken by the Joint Office on 18 March 2016, 27 May 2016, 29 November 2016 and 24 May 2017 respectively show that the moisture content at certain locations in PL’s Premises dropped in November 2016 after the repair work, but increased in May 2017;[7]

(2)  Investigation by Savills carried out during the period from 30 June 2017 to 22 July 2017 noted that coloured water marks appeared in the bedroom of PL’s Premises after dyed water was applied[8], indicating that there was water seepage from Ds’ Premises into PL’s Premises;

(3)  Moisture content measurements taken by the Joint Office on 12 June 2017 and 19 June 2017 respectively show a sharp increase in moisture content in PL’s Premises within a week;[9]

(4)  There was an increase in moisture content at the wall of Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 3 between 5 July 2017 and 3 August 2017; and the moisture content at the same locations dropped on 5 September 2017;[10]

(5)  There was a substantial increase in moisture content at the ceiling of Bedroom 1 between 3 August 2017 and 5 September 2017.

41.  In interpreting the above results, I bear in mind the following:

(1)  As confirmed by Madam Chan, one or more of the subdivided units in Ds’ Premises might be vacant at different times.

(2)  Mr Yeung, PL’s expert, advised that a moisture meter reading above 20 is considered abnormal, suggesting that there might be water leakage at that location. A benchmark reading of 35 is used to determine whether a water ponding test is warranted, since conducting such a test at a location with a moisture meter reading below 35 is unlikely to produce a positive result.

(3)  Furthermore, as stated in section 3.3 of the Specification of Water Seepage Investigation (adopted by the Joint Office), the seepage area should be monitored till colour dye appears or at least 3 weeks have elapsed before the coloured water test is concluded to be negative, while the appearance of specific colour dye shall be deemed to be a positive result indicating the source of seepage from the test area.

(4)  According to section 4.2.1 of the Professional Guide, a negative result from a colour dye test (which logically applies to the coloured water ponding tests conducted in Ds’ Premises) does not constitute conclusive evidence that no water leakage exists.

42.  Further, by a letter dated 11 July 2016[11], the Joint Office informed Madam Ho that, following its investigation, it had discovered a leak in the drainage pipe in the bathroom floor of Unit 1 inside Ds’ Premises. And the Joint Office subsequently issued a “防擾事故通知書” (“Nuisance Notice”) to Ds, requiring them to carry out the specified repair work.

43.  Therefore, according to the documentary records issued by the Joint Office and its consultants, Savills and Prudential, between March 2016 and March 2019, water seepage or leakage occurred inside PL’s Premises, and damage was done to the interior of the property. Regarding the source(s) of water leakage, one of them was the drainage pipe in the bathroom floor of Unit 1 of Ds’ Premises, other possible sources were unidentified.

F3.  Ds’ witnesses

44.  Madam Chan and the 2^nd Defendant gave evidence at trial.

F3.1  Madam Chan

45.  Madam Chan was the person dealing with Madam Ho’s initial complaint about water leakage in 2016. She has arranged for the inspection and carrying out of the repair work in Ds’ Premises at that stage. Here is her evidence.

46.  Madam Chan is the mother of the Ds. Ds acquired Ds’ Premises on 1 April 2004. The original internal layout of Ds’ Premises had three bedrooms, two kitchens and two bathrooms. Shortly after the acquisition, Ds converted the interior layout into five subdivided units, each with an ensuite toilet, and then rented them out. Madam Chan was entrusted by Ds with managing the property, including renting out the subdivided units.

47.  While Madam Ho said that when she called Madam Chan in 2016, she was very angry and refused to have any dialogue with her, Madam Chan testified that she had missed Madam Ho’s called, when she returned her call the next day, Madam Ho refused to allow her to inspect PL’s Premises, as Madam Chan was not the owner of Ds’ Premises. Madam Chan then asked Madam Ho to seek assistance from FEHD. This is in stark contrast with Madam Ho’s evidence.

48.  In around mid-March 2016, one Mr Yu from the Joint Office called Madam Chan regarding the water leakage occurred in PL’s Premises. The Joint Office subsequently performed tests in Ds’ Premises on 30 March 2016. In around mid-October 2016, Mr Yu called Madam Chan again and informed her that “被告人單位的一號房浴室內一幅牆身中間位置有漏水情況，導致樓下漏水，叫本人拍硬檔整咗佢”.

49.  Therefore, in around mid-November 2016, Madam Chan engaged someone to replace the waterproofing layer and flooring of the bathroom; the toilet bowl inside was also reinstalled. After the floor was opened up, as the worker did not notice any sign of water leakage, the drainage pipes in the floor were not replaced. During the repair work, Mr Yu came and took photos.

50.  After the repair work in November 2016, the Joint Office did not follow up on the water leakage. Madam Chan said the lack of further action from the Joint Office indicated that it was satisfied with the work done.

51.  However, in around mid-2017, Mr Yu called Madam Chan again, telling her that the water leakage in PL’s Premises persisted and requesting access to Ds’ Premises for carrying out further tests therein. Tests were then carried out by the Joint Office in July 2017.

52.  In around mid-December 2017, Mr Yu called Madam Chan and told her that PL’s Premises was still suffering from water leakage. This time, the Joint Office engaged an external consultant, Prudential Surveyors International Ltd, to carry out inspections and tests at the end of December 2017.

53.  After the said two further rounds of tests, Madam Chan did not hear anything from the Joint Office again. However, Madam Ho continued to complain about water leakage in PL’s Premises.

54.  Later on, Madam Chan was told by Mr Wu, ie Ds’ expert, that the Joint Office’s finding in 2016 was probably based on a test report dated 17 June 2016, which found that the leakage in PL’s Premises was caused by the damaged drainage pipe in the bathroom (of Unit 1). It was not due to a leak in the bathroom wall.

55.  For the repair work at the bathroom of Unit 1 carried out in 2016, Madam Chan said that, at that time, she simply followed Mr Yu’s instruction; she did not check whether the source of water leakage was really from the said bathroom and did not inspect the drainage pipes or repair them. She further clarified that no repairs were made to the wall of the bathroom in question.

56.  When questioned, Madam Chan confirmed that the tenants would shower in the bathrooms, and that water from the showers would splash onto the wall.

57.  Madam Chan further testified that, in November 2016, repairs were carried out to all the bathrooms in Ds’ Premises, and to enable such work to proceed, the tenants had to vacate the units. After the repair, the subdivided units were left vacant for some time before new tenants gradually moved in. However, the 2^nd Defendant, when she gave evidence in court, said that her mother was a bit confused, the repair work in 2016 only covered the bathroom of Unit 1, not the other bathrooms, and that she knew the drainage pipe in the bathroom floor was not touched.

58.  Lastly, Madam Chan confirmed that the external walls of Man On Building, including those at the Lightwell, were renovated in 2016, and not much repair work was done to the external wall after 2016.

F3.2  The 2^nd Defendant

59.  The 2^nd Defendant was not involved in the repair work carried out in the bathroom of Unit 1 in 2016; her evidence was mainly on the water ponding tests jointly conducted by the parties’ respective experts, Mr Yeung and Mr Wu, on 17 and 18 March 2023 and the subsequent cutting off of the flush water and fresh water supply to Ds’ Premises in mid-May 2023.

60.  The following were set out in the 2^nd Defendant’s witness statement dated 10 June 2025, which she has adopted as her evidence in chief:

(1)  In March 2023, Mr Yeung and Mr Wu jointly conducted a water ponding test in all the bathrooms inside Ds’ Premises. At that time, save for Unit 6 which the tenant used as a store, the other four units, namely Units 1, 2, 3 and 5, were occupied by different tenants.

(2)  In order to prove that Ds’ Premises was not the source of water leakage, upon the request of Ds, the tenants moved out of their respective units on the following dates:

Unit no	Move-out dates
Unit 5	28 April 2023
Unit 2	29 April 2023
Unit 1	6 May 2023
Unit 3	7 May 2023
Unit 6	3 September 2023

(3)  After the tenants of Units 1, 2, 3 and 5 had left, Ds applied to the Water Authority to cut the water supply to Ds’ Premises starting from 15 May 2023.

(4)  Upon the confirmation of the Water Authority, Ds engaged a plumber to disconnect the two flush water pipes and the only fresh water supply pipe on 16 May 2023 and 24 June 2023 respectively.

(5)  According to the various documentary records (including photographs showing the readings of the corresponding water meter for fresh water supply, water bills issued by the Water Authority at different times, records of inspection by the experts), there was no further freshwater consumption after the fresh water pipe was disconnected in June 2023.

(6)  Ds’ Premises has been left vacant since the last tenant of Unit 6 moved out on 3 September 2023.

61.  The 2^nd Defendant further testified that, in 2021, Mr Wu doubted whether the floor drainage in Unit 1’s bathroom was really leaking as stated by the Joint Office in 2016. In my view, Mr Wu had no basis to question the validity of the Joint Office’s findings made in 2016, which were based on the result of a coloured water test conducted in the bathroom in question. Had Mr Wu expressed such a view at trial, I would not accept it. According to both the Professional Guide and the Joint Office’s Specification for Water Seepage Investigation, a positive coloured water test result is conclusive evidence that the suspected source leaks.

62.  When asked why Ds cut off the water supply to Ds’ Premises in May 2023 and subsequently kept the premises vacant, the 2^nd Defendant avoided the question, responding with digressions and incoherence. She offered three purported reasons. The first two were: (a) a fear that a sudden pipe burst might cause water leakage in PL’s Premises, and (b) concern that tenants could damage the bathroom floor (and thus the waterproofing layer).

63.  Regarding the third reason, the 2^nd Defendant referred to police involvement during the water ponding test on 17 March 2023 and the presence of police officers at other times; however, her explanation was unclear and incomprehensible.

64.  The first two reasons are evidently not genuine, as the risks of a burst pipe or tenant-caused damage to the bathroom floor are ongoing and not unique to the circumstances. Mr Ng suggested that Ds cut off all water supply to Ds’ Premises to create a false impression that the water leakage in PL’s Premises had ceased, a claim denied by the 2^nd Defendant.

65.  As to the 2^nd Defendant’s earlier claim made in her statement that the water supply was cut off to prove that Ds’ Premises was not the source of the water leakage, I fail to see how secretly disconnecting the water supply to Ds’ Premises and evicting all tenants would substantiate such claim.

66.  When asked why Ds did not promptly inform PL or Madam Ho that the water supply to Ds’ Premises had been cut off, the 2^nd Defendant replied that it simply did not occur to her that she needed to do so. When she was pressed further, she said it had no impact on PL. These responses undermine her earlier assertion that the water supply was cut off to demonstrate that Ds’ Premises was not the source of the leakage. If that had been her genuine intention, she would have checked with PL whether the water leakage in PL’s Premises persisted after the water supply to Ds’ Premises was cut: if it did, the source would likely be elsewhere; if it ceased, Ds’ Premises would probably be the source.

67.  Further, in my view, if Ds had genuinely believed that there was no leakage from the water supply or the drainage system in Ds’ Premises, they would not have disconnected the water supply and vacated their premises. Their actions, coupled with their decision to keep it a secret, would naturally give PL the false impression that Ds have abated the water leakage. At the same time, it would render any further investigation work more difficult for PL and Mr Yeung.

68.  I therefore do not accept this part of her evidence.

69.  The third reason advanced by the 2^nd Defendant regarding police involvement relates to an unfortunate incident between Mr Yeung and Ds during the water ponding test that occurred late in the evening of 17 March 2023. The questionable conduct of Ds and their expert, Mr Wu, at that time cast doubt on the validity of the water ponding test. I will address this matter further when discussing the experts’ findings below.

70.  Although I do not accept most of the 2^nd Defendant’s evidence, her remaining evidence, together with that of Madam Chan, clearly establishes that Ds never undertook any repairs to the drainage pipe or the bathroom wall in Unit 1. Notably, neither Madam Chan nor the 2^nd Defendant disputed that, after the water supply to Ds’ Premises was cut in May 2023, no further complaints about water leakage in PL’s Premises were received from PL or Madam Ho. It is also undisputed between the parties that no major renovation or repair was conducted on the external wall at the Lightwell after 2016.

G.  EXPERT OPINION

71.  As mentioned above, Mr Yeung was initially engaged by Madam Ho to conduct a condition survey of Ps’ Premises in June 2019; his survey report was produced and sent to Ds on 25 June 2019. PL continued to retain Mr Yeung as his expert at trial.

72.  Mr Wu was appointed by Ds as their expert.

73.  For this action, they have jointly conducted the following inspections and tests at PL’s and Ds’ Premises:

Date	Test/Inspection performed
8 June 2022	Joint inspection at PL’s Premises for the fallen off air-conditioner in Bedroom 1
11 November 2022	Joint inspection at PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises
8 March 2023	Joint inspection at PL’s Premises prior to water ponding tests, which were later carried out on 17 and 18 March 2023
17 – 18 March 2023	Conducted 24-hour coloured water ponding tests at all bathrooms in Ds’ Premises
6 April 2023	Conducted result monitoring at PL’s Premises following the water ponding tests
11 August 2025	Joint inspection regarding the cutting of water supply to Ds’ Premises and status of water seepage at PL’s Premises[12]

74.  A Joint Report was filed and served on 31 July 2023. During the trial, a Supplement Joint Expert Report was filed and served on 14 October 2025.

75.  As Mr Wu, during his evidence, shifted his emphasis to his protimeter measurements regarding the risk of condensation inside PL’s Premises, which he had unilaterally taken at Ps’ Premises without the prior agreement of Mr Yeung, I granted leave to PL to file a further expert report in response. Pursuant to the leave, Mr Yeung filed the “Expert Report on Reliability of Condensation Function in Protimeter” on 14 November 2025.

76.  Both experts gave evidence at trial and were subject to cross-examination by the opposing party.

G1.  Mr Yeung’s evidence

77.  Mr Yeung carried out repeated inspections at both PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises at different times; his findings are summarized in the table below:

Date and test performed	Findings
8 June 2022   Visual inspection	Detachment of the upper part of the air-conditioner in Bedroom 1; there was a risk of it falling off;   The exposed electric wires have the risk of electric shock;   Mr Yeung took the view that it was caused by water seepage from Ds’ Premises – water stains/marks, delaminated plaster and paint were noted on the ceiling and wall of Bedrooms in PL’s Premises, concrete spalling was noted above the window frame of Bedroom 1;   Moisture content measurements taken inside Bedroom 1 showed a value of above 35.
8 March 2023   Visual inspection; Moisture Content Survey	Signs of water seepage were noted at the wall, ceiling and beam of PL's Premises. The following damage was noted:   (1) Water marks and stains were noted at ceiling and wall of Living room, ceiling of Bathroom 1, ceiling of Bathroom B, ceiling, beam and wall of Bedroom 1, ceiling, beam and wall of Bedroom 2, ceiling, beam and wall of Bedroom 3.   (2) Cracks, concrete spalling and hollow concrete were noted at the ceiling of the Living room, ceiling and beam of Kitchen, ceiling and beam of Bathroom 1, ceiling and beam of Bathroom 2, (5) ceiling, beam and wall of Bedroom 1, ceiling and beam of Bedroom 2, ceiling of Bedroom 3 and (8) ceiling of Bedroom 4.   (3) Delamination of plastering and finishing were noted at the ceiling of the Living room, ceiling of the Kitchen, ceiling of Bathroom 1, ceiling of Bathroom 2, ceiling, beam and wall of Bedroom 1, ceiling and beam of Bedroom 2, the ceilings of Bedroom 3 and Bedroom 4.   Regarding Ds’ Premises, no separated shower trays were noted at the bathrooms in Ds’ Premises. The whole bathroom floor functioned as a shower tray. Under such a design, the whole bathroom floor would be flooded with water when the tenant showered. No moisture meter readings were above 35%
17 & 18 March 2023   Moisture Content Survey;   Water ponding tests	Moisture content measurements were taken in Kitchen, Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2 and Bedroom 1, moisture content measured (under Pin mode) up to 43.2% was noted at the wall of Bedroom 1 and up to 999 (under search mode[13]) were noted at the wall of Kitchen, Bathrooms 1 and 2.   No significant increases in moisture content were noted immediately after the 24-hour dye water ponding test.   No colour dye was noted in PL’s Premises immediately after the 24-hour water ponding test.   When the experts returned to Ds’ Premises on 18 March 2023, it was noted that the colour-dyed water used in the water ponding test at the bathroom of Unit 3 had been drained away.
6 April 2023   Visual inspection at PL’s Premises;   Moisture Content Survey;   Chloride and Ammonia Test	Water droplets were noted on the wall of Bedroom 1, which was completely dry during the inspections on 8, 17 and 18 March 2023.   The areas of dirty stains and water stains on the internal wall of Bedroom 1 have increased.   Coloured water (in red and purple colour) was noted on the internal wall of Bedroom 1   Under moisture content measurement, the M.C.s at the ceiling, internal walls and beams of Bedroom 1 have increased up to 99.9%.   The moisture contents in the walls of the Kitchen, Bathroom 1 and Bathroom 2 were up to “999” (under search mode)   Chloride and ammonia were detected in the water on the wall of Bedroom 1, indicating that it originated from flushing water with salt and ammonia content.
After 6 April 2023   Examination of photos provided by PL	From 21 May 2023 to 31 May 2023, water droplets were noted on the internal wall of Bedroom 1, the water seepage condition was similar to that observed on 6 April 2023.   One major variation on the findings in Bedroom 1 is that the water droplets observed in PL’s photos were mainly clear water, while the water droplets noted during the inspection on 6 April 2023 were colour dyed water.
11 August 2025   Visual inspection to PL’s Premises and Ds’ Premises;   Moisture Content Survey in PL’s Premises;   Inspection of portable water meter for Ds’ Premises	In the moisture content survey, no positive moisture content was recorded in the Living room, Kitchen, Bathrooms 1 and 2, Bedrooms 1 to 4.   In general, the moisture content in Bedroom 1 and PL’s Premises had been substantially reduced as compared with the moisture content remeasurement readings taken in the previous inspections. There was only one spot where the moisture content was slightly above 35, which was not serious.   There was no significant change in the condition of the external wall at the Lightwell compared with its condition observed on 6 April 2023.

78.  Meanwhile, it is noteworthy that upon the joint inspections, Mr Wu agreed that:

(1)  there was water seepage at the beam soffit above the window in the Kitchen, Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2 and Bedroom 1 of PL’s Premises.

(2)  the moisture content of Bedroom 1 recorded on 6 April 2023 have generally increased as compared with the moisture contents measured on 8 March, 17 March or 18 March 2023.

(3)  There were no significant changes in moisture content in the Living Room, Bedrooms 2 to 4 between different dates of inspections.

(4)  During the inspection on 6 April 2023, no coloured water was observed in the Kitchen, Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2, Living Room, Bedrooms 2, 3 and 4.

79.  While both experts confirmed that no coloured water was found in the Kitchen, Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2, Living Room, Bedrooms 2, 3 and 4 during the inspection on 6 April 2023, I note that, as recorded by Mr Wu in the Joint Expert Report, the coloured water used in the ponding test for the bathroom of Unit 3 was found to be fully drained away when the experts returned on 18 March 2023. Hence, the said water test was not successfully completed, and the negative result was definitely unreliable.

80.  Based on what Mr Yeung observed during the inspections and the water ponding test results, he opined that:

(1)  The appearance of coloured water on the wall of Bedroom 1, 19 days after the water ponding test, positively proved that the water seepage in Bedroom 1 was from Ds’ Premises.

(2)  If the water droplets noted in Bedroom 1 were caused by high relative humidity, as suggested by Mr Wu, water droplets would not only have appeared in Bedroom 1, but they would also have appeared in other rooms, especially in Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2 and Kitchen, which normally have a higher humidity than other areas in PL’s Premises. However, water droplets were only observed on the walls and beams of Bedroom 1.

(3)  Despite the high mean relative humidity (above 89%) from 20 April 2023 to 23 April 2023, as recorded by the Hong Kong Observatory, no water droplets were noted in PL’s Premises during that period.

(4)  The mean relative humidity during the period from 28 May 2023 to 30 May 2023 was relatively low compared to other periods; however, the contemporaneous photographs do not show any water droplets forming inside PL’s Premises.

(5)  By reason of the above, the water droplets observed in Bedroom 1 were unlikely to be condensation.

(6)  The substantial reduction in value of the moisture content measurement readings taken on 11 August 2025, after the water supply to Ds’ Premises had been cut off, provided further evidence proving that Ds’ Premises was the source of water seepage in PL’s Premises prior to May 2023.

81.  Mr Yeung opined that the whole PL’s Premises was affected by water leakage. As to the possible source(s) of water leakage at different locations, his opinions are as follows:

Locations	Mr Yeung’s opinions
Living Room(including Corridors 1 and 2)	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under moisture meter survey, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in the Living Room: cracks, concrete spalling, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that the Living room had been affected by water seepage in the past.
Kitchen	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8 March 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in the Kitchen: cracks, concrete spalling, hollow concrete, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that the Kitchen had been affected by water seepage in the past.   After the 24-hour dye water ponding test on 17 & 18 March 2023, additional moisture measurements taken at points S1 to S6 were wet and the moisture contents ranged from 287 to 999.   Moisture Content measurements taken at points S1 to S6 on 6 April 2023 showed a further increase.   Water seepage in the Kitchen persisted and would continue.
Bathroom 1	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8 March 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in Bathroom 1: cracks, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that Bathroom 1 had been affected by water seepage in the past.   After the 24-hour dye water ponding test on 17 & 18 March 2023, additional moisture measurements taken at points S1 to S15 were wet and the moisture contents ranged from 220 to 999.   Moisture Content measurements taken at points S1 to S15 on 6 April 2023 showed a further increase.   Water seepage in Bathroom 1 persisted and would continue.
Bathroom 2	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8 March 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in Bathroom 2: cracks, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, concrete spalling, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that Bathroom 2 had been affected by water seepage in the past.   After the 24-hour dye water ponding test on 17 & 18 March 2023, additional moisture measurements taken at points S1 to S10 were wet and the moisture contents ranged from 207 to 999.   Moisture Content measurements taken at points S1 to S10 on 6 April 2023 showed a further increase.   Water seepage in Bathroom 2 persisted and would continue.
Bedroom 1	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8 March 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in Bedroom 1: cracks, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, concrete spalling, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that Bedroom 1 had been affected by water seepage in the past.   After the 24-hour dye water ponding test on 17 & 18 March 2023, additional moisture measurement taken at point S1 was wet and the moisture content was found to be 43.2%.     The moisture content measured at point S1 on 6 April 2023 showed an increase from 43.2% to 99.9%. Coloured water droplets (in orang/red) were noted on an internal wall (opposite the bedroom door) of Bedroom 1. They originated from the coloured water used in the ponding test at the bathroom of Unit 1.   There were other clear water droplets on the wall, indicating that there were other sources of leakage in Ds’ Premises, for instance, water from showers seeping through the surrounding walls of the bathrooms down to PL’s Premises.   Further, chloride and ammonia were detected in some of the water droplets, suggesting that they originated from flushing water, and the main source of leakage was related to the leaking drainage system and the waterproofing layers in the bathrooms of Ds’ Premises.   Conclusion: Water seepage persisted in Bedroom 1. Further, the presence of colour dye at the wall indicated that the waterproofing layer at the bathroom of Unit 1 was defective and water seepage occurred and eventually leaked into PL’s Premises.
Bedroom 2	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8, 17 and 18 March 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in Bedroom 2: cracks, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, concrete spalling, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that Bedroom 2 had been affected by water seepage in the past.   After the 24-hour dye water ponding test on 17 & 18 March 2023, additional moisture measurement taken at point D4 in Area RB1on 6 April 2023 showed a moisture content of 39.4%.
Bedroom 3	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8, 17 and 18 March 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in Bedroom 3: cracks, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, concrete spalling, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that Bedroom 3 had been affected by water seepage in the past.     After the 24-hour dye water ponding test on 17 & 18 March 2023, additional moisture measurement taken at other measurement points in Bedroom 3 showed an increase in moisture content.
Bedroom 4	Although no positive moisture content was recorded under the moisture meter survey on 8, 17 and 18 March 2023 and 6 April 2023, the following damage caused by water seepage was noted in Bedroom 3: cracks, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, concrete spalling, water stains and dirty stains. This indicated that Bedroom 3 had been affected by water seepage in the past.

82.  Mr Yeung further pointed out that immediately after the water ponding test on 18 March 2023 and during the inspection on 6 April 2023, positive moisture content readings were noted in Bedroom 1, Bathrooms 1 and 2, and Kitchen. This indicated that the water seepage into PL’s Premises originated from Ds’ Premises; the leakage persisted and would recur when the bathrooms inside Ds’ Premises were in use.

83.  In response to Mr Wu’s suggestion that the water droplets on the internal wall of Bedroom 1 resulted from condensation due to poor ventilation in PL’s Premises, Mr Yeung disagreed, dismissing this explanation as unscientific. Mr Yeung explained that:

(1)  During the inspections on 8 March, 17 March, 18 March, and 6 April 2023, the main front door and all interior doors, including the door to Bedroom 1, were kept open for most of the time. This practice facilitated the work of both experts, improved ventilation, and mitigated health hazards. Ventilation in PL’s Premises during these inspections was therefore adequate.

(2)  During these inspections, no activities such as boiling water, cooking, bathing, or washing clothes, as suggested by Mr Wu, were taking place inside PL’s Premises that might have increased indoor humidity. As a result, there was no need for mechanical ventilation.

(3)  During the inspection on 6 April 2023, water droplets appeared only on a single wall in Bedroom 1 and were absent from all other surfaces in PL’s Premises, including the ceiling and other internal walls of Bedroom 1. If condensation were the cause, droplets would have been expected in all rooms — particularly in Bathroom 1, Bathroom 2, and the Kitchen, where relative humidity is typically higher. However, no condensation was observed in those areas on that date.

(4)  Condensation would not result in concrete spalling or rusting of reinforcing bars.

84.  Regarding Mr Wu’s suggestion that the water damage in PL’s premises was caused by rainwater seeping through the external wall above the window at the Lightwell, Mr Yeung disagreed. He considered this unlikely because: (a) a canopy above the window on the external wall, together with the small size of the lightwell, meant that both the wall and window were sufficiently sheltered from rain; (b) there was no continuous structural crack connecting the external wall to the interior area of PL’s Premises where the seepage occurred, for example, Bedroom 4 was almost 30 feet away from the Lightwell; and (c) the presence of chloride and ammonia in the water droplets found in Bedroom 1 ruled out the possibility of rainwater being the source.

85.  Mr Yeung maintained that the coloured water droplets observed on 6 April 2023 originated from the 24-hour water test conducted on 17 and 18 March 2023. It was because,

(1)  the coloured water observed on the wall of Bedroom 1 matched the colour of the dye used in the water ponding test;

(2)  prior to the water ponding test, neither water droplets nor elevated moisture content (above 35) were observed in Bedroom 1. Following the test, water droplets appeared on 6 April 2023, and the moisture content in Bedroom 1 increased;

(3)  no defects were identified on the external wall at the Lightwell, making seepage through this wall unlikely; and

(4)  according to the photo records, water droplets continued to appear on the wall in Bedroom 1 even when the weather was dry and relative humidity was low.

86.  Mr Yeung further observed that the damage to the walls and ceiling in PL’s Premises, including concrete spalling, hollow concrete, delamination of finishes, water marks, and stains, was located directly beneath the bathrooms of Ds’ Premises. He therefore concluded that the unauthorised internal alterations carried out by Ds were the primary cause of water seepage in PL’s Premises.

87.  At trial, Mr Yeung further added that, because the surrounding walls of the bathrooms in Ds’ Premises were constructed of brick, water from showers could infiltrate the walls and seep downward into PL’s premises. However, since he had not considered this possibility at the time, no water spray tests were conducted on those walls.

G1.1  The conflict between Mr Yeung and Ds during the water ponding test on 17 March 2023 (the “17 March Incident”)

88.  This is related to the third reason advanced by the 2^nd Defendant for cutting off all water supply to the Ds’ Premises in mid-2023.

89.  Water ponding tests at the five bathrooms in the Ds’ Premises were conducted on 17 and 18 March 2023, pursuant to the order of Master Shum dated 1 March 2023. These tests were to be jointly carried out by Mr Yeung and Mr Wu. The order also required a subsequent joint inspection within 21 days of the ponding tests, which took place on 6 April 2023.

90.  According to Mr Yeung, he and Mr Wu had previously agreed that no one should be present in Ds’ Premises during the ponding tests, in order to prevent any interference.

91.  Mr Wu, however, denied the existence of such an agreement.

92.  I do not accept Mr Wu’s evidence. According to Mr Wu’s evidence, he requested Ds to stay in the corridor outside Ds’ Premises for 24 hours during the test. The 2^nd Defendant further testified that she purchased a new combination pad lock specifically for that occasion. If there had been no such agreement between the experts, these precautions would have been unnecessary.

93.  During the evening of 17 March, while conducting the ponding tests, both experts initially remained in PL’s Premises to monitor the situation. At approximately 10 pm, Mr Yeung’s assistant informed him that there were people inside Ds’ Premises.

94.  Mr Yeung subsequently went up to the fourth floor to check and saw a man and two women inside Ds’ Premises. Mr Yeung testified that, upon confronting them, the man behaved aggressively and used triad-related language. Fearing for his personal safety, Mr Yeung reported the incident to the police.

95.  In re-examination, the 2^nd Defendant claimed not to know why Mr Yeung called the police on that occasion. However, after further questioning, she admitted that she was present, and that the other man and woman identified by Mr Yeung were her brother (the 1^st Defendant) and his wife. Given that the 2^nd Defendant was at the scene, and according to her own account was in the corridor outside Ds’ Premises, I do not accept that she was unaware of the reason for contacting the police.

96.  As to whether Ds were inside their premises at the relevant time, thereby breaching the experts’ agreement, the 2^nd Defendant initially denied any such entry. However, after further questioning and a series of contradictory responses, she ultimately admitted that they had, in fact, entered Ds’ Premises. When pressed for an explanation, she asserted that her entry was solely to ensure everything was in order, given that tenants’ property was present inside.

97.  In my assessment, the 2^nd Defendant’s account of the 17 March Incident lacks credibility. The main door of Ds’ Premises must have already been secured with a lock, and there was no evidence to suggest that anyone other than the tenants or Ds possessed a key. As such, acquiring an additional combination pad lock for this occasion appears unwarranted. Moreover, if a new pad lock had indeed been purchased and installed, it would have been unnecessary for Ds and the 1^st Defendant’s wife to remain in the corridor outside the premises, much less for 24 hours. I can discern no legitimate reason for their entry into Ds’ Premises at 10 pm.

98.  Meanwhile, Mr Wu’s response at the time upon learning of the conflict between Mr Yeung and Ds in Ds’ Premises was, at best, highly unusual. He elected to remain in PL’s Premises even after Mr Yeung’s departure. During cross-examination, Mr Wu explained that he did not investigate the matter because he was focused on inspecting for water leakage in PL’s Premises and had been instructed by Ds’ solicitors to remain there.

99.  Mr Wu further claimed he did not notice Mr Yeung leaving PL’s Premises. It is important to note that PL’s Premises was only approximately 300 square feet in size, and both experts were monitoring the situation together. The assertion that he failed to notice Mr Yeung’s departure under these circumstances is simply not credible.

100.  In my view, since the water tests were conducted jointly with both experts present to oversee the process, it is implausible that Mr Wu - if he were truly unaware of any wrongdoing by Ds - would not have immediately gone upstairs to investigate upon learning that Mr Yeung was arguing with Ds about the water ponding tests.

101.  The next day, when the experts returned to Ds’ Premises, they found that the dyed water in the bathroom of Unit 3 had drained away.

102.  Although there was no direct evidence that Ds had tampered with the water ponding tests, the questionable conduct of both Ds and Mr Wu, as described above, casts doubt on the validity of the negative test results.

G1.2  Joint inspection on 6 April 2023

103.  Regarding the joint inspection on 6 April 2023, Mr Yeung testified that he had observed coloured water droplets on the wall in Bedroom 1 during the inspection. However, when he pointed them out to Mr Wu, Mr Wu immediately wiped away the droplets, claiming he was collecting a sample for further testing. In the subsequent Joint Expert Report, Mr Wu asserted that no coloured droplets were observed during the inspection, nor did Mr Yeung ever inform him of their presence at that time. I note that Mr Yeung’s complaint was documented in his letter dated 10 May 2023, though it was denied by Ds’ solicitors. I will further address this issue in the following section.

104.  I find Mr Yeung to be a fair, helpful, and highly knowledgeable expert in water leakage investigation. He made every effort to assist the Court, offering balanced and sensible opinions that were consistent with common sense and everyday experience. When shortcomings in his investigation were identified, he readily acknowledged them. For example, when questioned by the Court about the absence of water spraying tests on the bathroom walls — given that the tenants showered in the bathrooms and no waterproofing work had been applied to the surrounding walls — he did not offer excuses or attempt to downplay their necessity. Instead, he candidly admitted that, had he considered it at the time, he would have conducted the tests.

105.  I accept Mr Yeung’s evidence.

G2.  Mr Wu’s evidence

G2.1  Lack of impartiality

106.  Mr Wu, in his capacity as an expert, gave evidence that was highly unsatisfactory and unhelpful. Not only were his opinions blatantly unreliable - being contrary to common sense and unsupported by undisputed or indisputable facts - but, more concerningly, he demonstrated a wrong attitude and a complete disregard for his duty as an expert witness to the court. Throughout the proceedings, he acted as an advocate for Ds rather than as an impartial expert.

107.  First, instead of cooperating with Mr Yeung to identify and conduct the most appropriate tests for the specific circumstances and thereby assist the court in determining the most probable source or sources of leakage, Mr Wu chose to disagree with Mr Yeung on nearly every point. Mr Yeung testified that Mr Wu had been aggressive and confrontational; it was almost impossible to discuss, let alone agree, on anything with him during the joint investigation or the preparation of the Joint Expert Report. I note that even on issues as minor as the designation of rooms within the Premises and the different joint inspections conducted, the experts could not reach agreement on a common set of designations.[14]

108.  Second, rather than promptly raising any concerns with Mr Yeung regarding the methodology employed for the water ponding test during the investigation, Mr Wu withheld his objections until the preparation of the Joint Report, apparently intending to use them later to undermine the test results or Mr Yeung’s opinions. His overall approach to the joint investigation focused on identifying procedural faults in order to challenge the validity of the investigation after the fact. For example, in the Joint Report, Mr Wu raised the following criticisms of the 24-hour water ponding test:

“3.4.2 YEUNG did not inform WU that this 24-hour ponding test was conducted by Building Diagnostic Consultants Limited (BDC). Therefore, there was no chance for WU to verify the qualification of the site staff of BDC on site.

3.4.3 On 17 Mar 2023, there were 7 assistants of YEUNG (YEUNG’s team) arrived at Plaintiff’s flat before 8:20 am., WU did not know who were the staff of BDC.

….

3.4.6 It was noted that none of these 7 assistants of YEUNG was well trained with this 24-hour ponding test operation at:

(A) Sealing off drain points on bathrooms floor in order to avoid water loss during this 24-hour ponding test. As a result, colour water was found lost completely in Unit 5 after 2 hours, and a new set up was required.

(B) The sealing off work at Unit 3 was similar to Unit 5, however, it was considered full of colour water after 2 hours, but the water was found completely lost at about 09:00 on 18 Mar 2023.

(C) At Units 1, 2 and 6, the sealing off work to the drain points were using different technique by YEUNG’s team.

(E) None of these 7 assistants of YEUNG (including YEUNG) knew what was the ratio for diluting dye water. After referring to the “Guide”, YEUNG decided to use 1:100 ratio for diluting colour dye.

(F) With this ratio decided, YEUNG’s team had used a small measuring jar to achieve this ratio precisely. As a result, much more time was required just for filling up the ponding water to the bathroom floors.

(G) YEUNG had used 3 difference colour dyes for 5 bathrooms. As a result, the colour dye used at Units 2, 3 and 6 were the same colour (Standard Blue). There is no problem as long as the test is aimed at whether colour water would appear at Plaintiff’s flat after this 24-hour ponding test or not. However, they had used 3 different colours but not just using 1 colour and wonder that why the need to allocate a red colour to bathroom of Unit 1 when blue colour had been used in other bathrooms.…”

The 24-hour ponding test was intended to form part of the joint inspection or investigation by both experts. The tests were supposed to be jointly conducted. If Mr Wu had concerns about how the test ought to be conducted, he should have raised them with Mr Yeung at the time to ensure the validity of the results or conducted his own test in the manner he deemed appropriate. His approach to the joint tests was unhelpful.

109.  Third, in an apparent effort to support Ds’ case, Mr Wu was willing to challenge the credibility of Madam Chan’s and the 2^nd Defendant’s evidence when it was unfavourable to Ds. Although both Madam Chan and the 2^nd Defendant unequivocally stated that the floor drainage in the bathroom of Unit 1 was not replaced in 2016, Mr Wu nonetheless referenced a photograph - which did not actually depict any exposed drainage pipe - and insisted that the replacement had occurred in 2016. In my view, an honest expert who had not witnessed the repair work undertaken in 2016 would not have made such an unfounded assertion. Notably, even though Madam Chan had informed Mr Wu in early 2022 that the floor drain had not been repaired, Mr Wu still falsely stated in the Joint Report that it had been.[15]

110.  Fourth, although Mr Wu admitted that he had not read the Nuisance Notice issued to Ds by the Joint Office in 2016 and was unaware of the specific repair work required, he nevertheless opined that Ds had completed the required repairs in accordance with the Nuisance Notice.

111.  Another example of Mr Wu’s lack of impartiality and objectivity arose when he was confronted with the fact that the presence of ammonia in the water droplets on the wall indicated the water could not have been the result of rainwater seepage through the external wall. Without any supporting factual basis, Mr Wu speculated that someone might have wiped the wall at some stage with chemicals containing ammonia. Had this been a genuine concern, it would have been explored with Madam Ho during cross-examination; however, no such inquiry was made by Ds’ counsel.

112.  Furthermore, at one point, Mr Wu asserted to the court that the conversion of Ds’ Premises into five subdivided units with ensuite toilets qualified as exempted work under the Building Ordinance, stating that these were not unauthorised building works (“UBW”). However, upon further questioning by the Court, Mr Wu admitted that he had reviewed the revised internal layout of Ds’ Premises and found that at least one of the subdivided units did not meet the relevant requirements for exempted works.

113.  Mr Wu’s conduct was wholly unacceptable. The issue is not whether the alteration works in Ds’ Premises were, in fact, exempted or unauthorised - this is ultimately irrelevant to determining the source of the water leakage. The real concern is that Mr Wu intentionally presented an opinion to the Court that he did not genuinely believe to be correct. This constituted serious professional misconduct on his part.

114.  There were additional instances in which Mr Wu appeared to confuse - or even mislead - the court in an effort to support Ds’ case. A notable example is as follows: In the Joint Expert Report, Mr Wu referenced an inspection report prepared by Savills[16] and asserted that the Building Authority did not consider the subdivided units in Ds’ Premises to be UBW. This assertion was plainly inaccurate. The Savills report merely advised the Building Department that there was no imminent structural danger in PL’s Premises; significantly, as stated in the report, the Savills inspector had not even entered Ds’ Premises as it was inaccessible. Thus, Savills could not have reached any conclusion regarding whether the subdivided units constituted UBW.

115.  Another example relates to whether Mr Wu checked and recorded the relative humidity inside PL’s Premises during the inspection. His initial response misled the Court into believing that he had done so; however, upon further questioning, it became clear that he had not.

116.  It therefore appears that, if necessary, Mr Wu would provide false or misleading evidence to further Ds’ case.

G2.2  Mr Wu’s opinion regarding the source of water leakage

117.  With respect to the source of the water leakage, Mr Wu opined that it did not originate from Ds’ Premises. He asserted that the water damage inside PL’s Premises was caused by (a) rainwater infiltration through the external wall at the Lightwell, and (b) water condensation resulting from high humidity and inadequate ventilation within PL’s Premises. In my judgment, such opinion is contrary to common sense and wholly untenable.

118.  During the joint inspection on 6 April 2023, Mr Yeung tested the water droplets on the wall of Bedroom 1 and detected the presence of chloride and ammonia. Both Mr Yeung’s evidence and general scientific knowledge confirm that rainwater does not contain chloride or ammonia. Likewise, condensation formed from indoor air would not contain these substances.

119.  Furthermore, if the water droplets observed on the wall in Bedroom 1 on 6 April 2023, or the water that seeped into PL’s Premises between 2016 and May 2023, were simply condensation from atmospheric moisture, as Mr Wu suggested, this moisture would not have appeared predominantly on the dividing wall between PL’s Premises and the adjacent flat, while sparing other interior walls, the ceiling, or the beam above.

120.  Furthermore, I do not accept that water condensation on the surface of the ceramic tiles in the bathrooms and kitchen could have caused the tiles to detach and fall off, nor that natural condensation on the concrete surface would have led to spalling or corrosion of the embedded reinforcement. Regarding the latter, Mr Yeung opined that such an outcome would not occur.

121.  Moreover, Mr Wu visited PL’s Premises only a few times in 2022 and 2023; he therefore lacks any basis to assert that PL’s Premises were consistently subject to high humidity and poor ventilation, resulting in ongoing water condensation. According to Madam Ho, condensation on the walls occurred only when there was a significant temperature difference, indicating that such condensation was not constant. Furthermore, Madam Ho was able to distinguish between condensation and water seepage based on their appearance.

122.  It is noteworthy that, during the trial, Mr Wu conceded to the Court that if the amount of water leaking into PL’s Premises was as extensive as Madam Ho described, condensation could not have been the cause. Mr Wu was present in court and heard Madam Ho’s testimony, as an impartial expert, he should have proactively advised the Court during his evidence in chief that, given the significant quantity of water involved, condensation was an improbable explanation. However, he failed to do so.

123.  In any event, if the true sources of water leakage were condensation and rainwater seeping through the external wall at the Lightwell, it would be illogical for the water leakage inside PL’s Premises to have ceased shortly after Ds cut off the water supply to their premises in mid-2023. Notably, (a) no repair or renovation was carried out on the external wall at the Lightwell after mid-2023, and (b) Madam Ho’s unchallenged testimony was that, after mid-2023, no further water leakage occurred, even during typhoons and black rainstorms, and PL’s Premises remained dry. Mr Wu admitted that, despite the black rainstorms over a few days before his inspection in 2025, he observed that the leakage inside PL’s Premises had substantially improved compared with before.

124.  Regardless of Mr Wu’s apparent bias and his tendency to provide false or misleading opinions in favour of Ds, for the reasons stated above, I am not persuaded that condensation or rainwater seepage through the external wall at the Lightwell caused the water damage inside PL’s Premises. Therefore, save for Mr Wu’s concession that, considering the large quantity of water involved, condensation would unlikely be the cause of leakage, his opinions are rejected.

G2.3  Did Mr Wu wipe away the coloured water appeared in Bedroom 1?

125.  Returning to the issue of whether Mr Wu intentionally wiped away the coloured water droplets that appeared on the wall of Bedroom 1 during the joint inspection on 6 April 2023, it is important to note that Mr Yeung was repeatedly warned about the seriousness of his accusation against Mr Wu, and that, if untrue, it could amount to contempt. Nevertheless, Mr Yeung maintained that coloured water droplets had in fact appeared on the wall and that, as soon as he pointed them out, Mr Wu immediately moved forward and wiped them away with a tissue. When confronted by Mr Yeung about this conduct, Mr Wu claimed he was merely collecting samples for testing. Mr Yeung further stated that his assistants, who were present at the time, also witnessed Mr Wu’s actions.

126.  Mr Wu denied these allegations. Consequently, no test report exists for any samples purportedly taken on 6 April 2023.

127.  At trial, Mr Wu testified that he did not observe any coloured water on the wall of Bedroom 1 during the inspection and that he never used tissue paper to wipe water from the wall. He emphasised that Mr Yeung did not even check for the presence of coloured water during the inspection, let alone point out any coloured water droplets. Furthermore, Mr Wu maintained that it would have been impossible to wipe away all the water on the wall with a piece of tissue.

128.  Mr Yeung’s accusation pertains to specific actions: (a) Mr Yeung informed Mr Wu of the presence of coloured water droplets on the wall, and (b) Mr Wu subsequently wiped them away. Mr Wu denied both allegations[17]. There is no possibility of misunderstanding or miscommunication between the two experts. Either the incident occurred or it did not; one of them must be giving false testimony. If it did occur, Mr Wu’s conduct would amount to serious misconduct and would undermine the proper administration of justice.

129.  Having considered the matters set out below, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that: (a) following the water ponding tests conducted at Ds’ Premises on 17 and 18 March 2023, coloured water droplets appeared on the wall of Bedroom 1 in PL’s Premises on 6 April 2023; (b) these droplets were observed by Mr Yeung; and (c) when Mr Yeung pointed them out, Mr Wu wiped them away, thereby destroying evidence adverse to Ds.

(1)  In 2016, the Joint Office tested the bathroom of Unit 1 in Ds’ Premises and determined that the floor drainage was the source of water leakage into PL’s Premises.

(2)  Following the Joint Office’s investigation in 2016, Mr Yu informed Madam Chan that the wall of the Unit 1 bathroom was leaking and requested that repairs be undertaken.

(3)  No repairs were ever carried out by Ds to the floor drainage or wall in question.

(4)  There is no evidence to suggest that a leaking floor drain or wall would resolve itself over time without intervention.

(5)  Water leakage in PL’s Premises never stopped and got worse in mid-2017 and continued intermittently until around mid-2023.

(6)  It is highly likely that the floor drainage and/or the wall of the bathroom in question was still leaking in March and April 2023, during both the ponding tests on 17 to 18 March 2023 and the joint inspection on 6 April 2023.

(7)  Photographs demonstrate that the wall in question was severely affected by water seepage.

(8)  The bathroom of Unit 1 was located directly above Bathroom 2 and close to the wall of Bedroom 1 in PL’s Premises, where coloured water droplets were observed. Consequently, any leakage from the bathroom would likely impact the wall of Bedroom 1. I do not accept Mr Wu’s view that the bathroom of Unit 1 was not close to the wall of Bedroom 1 in question[18]. Notably, in his opinion that the water damage inside PL’s Premises was caused by rainwater leaking through the external wall at the Lightwell, Mr Wu did not consider that the wall in Bedroom 3, which is much farther from the Lightwell, would not be sufficiently close to be affected by rainwater. Mr Wu has evidently applied a double standard in his reasoning.

(9)  Mr Yeung promptly raised his complaint in a letter dated 10 May 2023[19]; it was not a recent fabrication. The letter stated the following:

“9. Due to the serious coloured droplets found on the wall in bedroom 1 of the Plaintiff’s premises, our expert and his assistants reasonably spent more time in bedroom 1 than in the rest of the bedrooms/toilets.

…

16. We are disappointed to see how Mr Wu saw fit to collect droplets in bedroom 1 using a tissue paper, rather than an appropriate container. This was totally unacceptable and unprofessional. Mr Wu’s acts of collecting the droplets with a tissue paper reduced the surface moisture which we believe was an act done in favour of the Defendant in a biased manner.”

(10)  In response, Mr Wu, through Ds’ solicitors[20], only denied that he had ever attempted to collect water droplets from the wall of Bedroom 1 using tissue or other means; he did not deny the presence of coloured water droplets on the wall. The following were Mr Wu’s related responses:

“18. We strenuously denied that Mr. Wu has ever tried to collect water droplets from the wall in Bedroom 1 by tissue paper or other means. Mr Yeung’s Reply implied that Mr. Wu has tried to wipe the moisture on the surface of the wall away with a piece of tissue paper. This is a very serious allegation against a professional and we demand Mr. Yeung to produce solid evidence to substantiate his accusation.

19. …We are further advised by Mr. Wu that if there was a lot of water found on the wall in Bedroom 1 and a piece of tissue paper would hardly affect the moisture contents on the surface of the wall, not to mention the moisture contents inside the structure which could be easily detected by a moisture contents reading device of water indeed came from our clients’ premises through the floor slab to your client’s premises.”

(11)  It was only until the Joint Expert Report was served on 24 July 2023 that Mr Wu stated therein that “There was no colour droplets found on this wall”.

(12)  Mr Yeung asserted that Mr Wu’s act of wiping away the coloured water droplets on the wall of Bedroom 1 was also witnessed by Mr Yeung’s assistants, who could provide evidence if necessary.

(13)  The area affected by water leakage was extensive and widespread. Had Mr Yeung been dishonest, he could have claimed that coloured water droplets appeared in multiple locations, rather than only on one wall in Bedroom 1. In contrast, Mr Wu, while giving his expert evidence, acted as an advocate for Ds.

130.  At trial, Mr Ng referred me to several court judgments in which Mr Wu was criticised for similar conduct: Yu Siu Hung v Yuen Man Chiu Roger, LDBM 292/2009, unreported, 21 November 2014; Yeung Yik Chun v Wong Lai Ming and Another [2023] HKDC 1160; and Wong Wah On Edward v Lok Shor Bing [2024] HKDC 16. It appears that Mr Wu has not learned from his past mistakes and continues to disregard his duties and responsibilities as an expert. These obligations were clearly articulated by Lam J (as he then was) in Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Cheun, HCAP 8/2007, unreported, 2 February 2010, at paragraphs 484 to 493 of the Judgment, which I quote below as a reminder to professionals who provide expert opinion in court:

“484. An expert should not advance an argument or use a piece of information or data to support his opinion unless he is professionally convinced of the validity of the argument or the appropriateness of the use of that supporting material. The inclusion of something the validity of which the expert himself considered doubtful in his report inevitably undermines his credibility in the court’s assessment[21]. An independent and impartial professional expert should not resort to a tactic of putting forward some plausible arguments in favour of his client which he personally has difficulty in vouchsafing and leaving it to his counterpart to convince the court that the arguments should be rejected. In my view, such an expert has not discharged his overriding duty to the court, which is to use his own professional expertise to assist the court without regard to the exigencies of litigation.

486. Here lies the crucial distinction between an advocate and an expert witness. Even though counsel and solicitor also owes an overriding duty to the court in certain respects, the court understands that as advocates they are not impartial as they also have a duty to present the case of their respective clients. But the position of an expert witness is different. His evidence is admitted to assist the court on a subject which requires expertise he has acquired (but not the court). Therefore, what the court wishes to hear is the expert’s own independent professional opinion on the topic instead of a biased view constructed and put forward for the purpose of advancing a party’s position. Given the court’s lack of expertise on the subject which an expert gives his evidence, the strict adherence by expert to the duty of independence is important for the proper administration of justice. Whilst there might still be bona fide reasonable disagreements between two experts, the disagreements should only be based on independent professional judgments instead of being client interest driven.

487. … the court is vigilant in ensuring that the integrity of the legal process would not be tainted by evidence of an expert who put a party’s interest above his professional duty to the court. If it can be shown that an expert persistently adopted a stance which he himself had obvious difficulty in sustaining, most of the time this is the hallmark of the expert’s failure to adhere to the duty of independence.

487. … Very often, the most telling indicia of the professionalism and impartiality of an expert witness is how he deals with his weakest point under cross-examination. In Best Origin, I have set out what this court expects from an expert witness when he is faced with his own mistake after he produced his report. Instead of keeping silent and hoping that the point would not be discovered, he should correct it on his own volition as soon as practicable.

488. … Nowadays, the court expects expert witnesses to act responsibly and professionally in meeting the points raised by the experts on the other side. The whole point of requiring expert reports to be served or exchanged and directing meetings of experts and the preparation of joint statements/reports is to facilitate independent and frank communications between the experts in order to narrow down their differences through a dialogue on a professional level. The objective is to focus on the real issues that need to be adjudicated by the court. Unnecessary and unhelpful arguments should be trimmed down through these pre-trial procedures.

489. No matter how experienced and well qualified an expert may be, it is always possible that he misses some salient points in the preparation of his first report despite the exercise of due care and diligence. Further, with the accelerated growth and development of human knowledge, new techniques or learning may emerge. Also, especially in areas where an opinion depends a lot on subjectivity, whilst there is always scope for reasonable disagreement, every expert would appreciate that amongst the arguments he relied upon, some is of greater force than others. An impartial and responsible expert, after studying the report of his counterpart, should re-assess his own views and if there are valid points against his opinion, he should acknowledge them instead of finding other new material to salvage an exposed weakness.

490. The joint meeting is an opportunity for the experts to narrow their differences. It takes two to tango. It requires both experts to focus on the objective of the meeting and act responsibly and frankly with each other. At such meeting, an expert should bear in mind his overriding duty to the court to act independently without any fear of compromising his client’s position. Thus if his professional judgment dictates that a concession should be made in the light of arguments advanced by the other side, he should not feel inhibited from doing so due to conflicting opinion previously expressed by him in favour of his client. On matters within his expertise, an expert needs not seek instructions from his client before reaching an agreement with the other side’s expert. A self-respecting expert should not accept instructions that placed limitations on his professional judgment in the performance of his duty as an expert witness. … In line with his duty to act independently, an expert should not be dictated by his client in respect of the substance of his expert evidence and the agreement to be reached in joint meeting.

491. Thus, instead of spending time on indiscriminant defence of one’s position, expert witnesses should give due weight to the arguments set out in their counterpart’s opinion and try to reach agreement on points which are not worthy of argument. Unfortunately, there are occasions … where some experts jumped straight to a defensive mode instead of adopting a “step-back and look” approach in considering the other side’s arguments. In so doing, I am afraid that such expert is abandoning his impartiality and neglecting his overriding duty to the court.

492. Worse still, there are occasions where expert uses the joint meeting and reply reports as platforms for putting forward new arguments and open new fronts for debate. Confronted with such a report, the other side would retaliate by putting in further materials in the name of rebuttal. More issues are raised. A vicious cycle is perpetuated. Instead of narrowing down the differences, expert issues are proliferated. The presentation of too many (including some unnecessary) expert issues not only adds to the costs and time of a trial, it also creates a risk of diverting the court’s attention away from the central issues in a case. It is not conducive to the effective resolution of the dispute. In many instances, the proliferation of issues is the hallmark of an expert struggling to defend an indefensible position by generating new issues as smokescreen.

493. Obviously, such an approach is inconsistent with the underlying objectives under Order 1A. Even though there is no reference to the expert witness in Order 1A Rule 3, after the commencement of the rules introduced by the Civil Justice Reform, an expert giving evidence in court has to observe the Code of Conduct in Appendix D, see Order 38 Rules 37B and 37C. Paragraph 13 of the Code of Conduct highlights the importance of an expert witness exercising his independent professional judgment in relation to expert meeting and joint report.”

H.  WAS Ds’ PREMISES THE SOURCE OF WATER LEAKAGE IN PL’s PREMISES?

131.  Upon a comprehensive assessment of the factual evidence and expert opinions, especially the following points, I am satisfied that the source of water leakage or seepage in PL’s Premises was Ds’ Premises.

(1)  In 2016, the Joint Office carried out an investigation, including water tests in Ds’ Premises, and determined that the source of water seepage in PL’s Premises was Ds’ Premises, more specifically the floor drainage and wall of the bathroom of Unit 1;

(2)  Despite the issue of the Nuisance Notice by the Joint Office, and the verbal request by Mr Yu (of the Joint Office), no repairs were carried out to the floor drainage or the wall in question;

(3)  The leakage in PL’s Premises persisted after November 2016 and got worse in around mid-2017, thereafter leakage occurred intermittently;

(4)  It’s Madam Chan’s evidence that there were periods when one or more of the subdivided units in Ds’ Premises were not occupied. This may explain why the water leakage in PL’s Premises did not occur continuously;

(5)  Following the coloured water ponding test on 17 March and 18 March 2023, (a) an increase in moisture content was noted at a number of measurement points on the internal wall and ceiling of Bedroom 1, and (b) the walls and ceiling of Bathroom 2 were found to be saturated with water[22];

(6)  Further, the appearance of coloured water droplets on the wall of Bedroom 1 noted during the inspection on 6 April 2023 is conclusive evidence of leakage from the bathrooms of Ds’ Premises;

(7)  Since the colour-dyed water used for the ponding test in the bathroom of Unit 3 had fully drained away prior to the completion of the ponding test, the negative result associated with Unit 3 bathroom was unreliable;

(8)  As to the other negative ponding test results for Units 2, 5 and 6, their validity is in doubt because of the 17 March Incident;

(9)  The fact that there was no more water leakage in PL’s Premises during typhoon and black rainstorms after May 2023 eliminated leakage through the external wall at the Lightwell as a possibility;

(10)  Further, the presence of chloride and ammonia in the water droplets found in Bedroom 1, as a matter of common scientific knowledge, confirmed that it was not rainwater seeping through the external wall at the Lightwell;

(11)  The appearance of water droplets on a single wall in Bedroom 1, but not other walls or ceiling in the same room, makes it highly unlikely that the water droplets found were condensation due to high humidity and poor ventilation; and

(12)  Finally, and in my judgment almost conclusively, the complete stoppage of water leakage after Ds had cut off all water supply to Ds Premises and vacated the same demonstrated that the prior source(s) of water leakage that had caused the damage inside PL’s Premises was/were from Ds’ Premises.

I.  ARE Ds LIABLE FOR THE LOSS AND DAMAGE SUFFERED BY PL?

132.  The mere fact that water leakage is traced to the defendant’s property does not automatically give rise to liability. To establish liability in nuisance, it must be demonstrated that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the water leakage originating from his premises. For these purposes, “knowledge” encompasses both actual awareness and what the defendant ought reasonably to have known by exercising normal and reasonable diligence. A defendant who possesses such knowledge will be liable if he fails to take prompt and reasonable remedial action to address the water leakage: Wu Hucheng v Tian Jiong & Another [2024] HKDC 1902 at §50; Loke Yuen Jean Tak Alice v Wong & Others, HCA 495/2012, 1 August 2019 at §55; Larbons Limited v Kuo You Weaving Factory Ltd, DCCJ 934/2006, 12 July 2007 at §76.

133.  Accordingly, a defendant who lacks actual or constructive knowledge that water leakage emanates from his property is not liable. However, once the defendant acquires the requisite knowledge, actual or constructive, they will be liable unless remedial action is taken without delay: Tin Kin Ka Clara v Chan Koon Cheong & Another, DCCJ  3139/2012, 11 May 2015 at §§54-55; Leung Wai Kee v Tam Yuen Sheng, DCCJ 5716/2007, 10 July 2012 at §43.

134.  A claim in negligence will stand or fall with a claim in nuisance. The principles of negligence and nuisance coincide in that, where an owner knows or ought to know that their conduct or omission in relation to their land will cause harm to a neighbour, they are under a duty to prevent or abate such harm: Siu Kwok Keung Raymond v Yee Shia Yuen, DCCJ 2131/2012, unreported, 31 October 2017 at §101.

135.  The central issue is whether Ds had actual or constructive knowledge that the water leakage originated from their premises.

136.  At the material times, Madam Chan was entrusted by Ds to manage Ds’ Premises. The evidence clearly establishes that she received complaints about water leakage in PL’s premises directly from Madam Ho when the issue began in early 2016.

137.  Following an investigation by the Joint Office, the Nuisance Notice was issued to Ds around July 2016, informing them of water leakage from the floor drainage of the bathroom in Unit 1, and requesting that they carry out the necessary repairs.

138.  Subsequently, in around mid-October 2016, Madam Chan was further notified by Mr Yu of the Joint Office that water was leaking from the middle part of the bathroom wall in Unit 1 down to PL’s premises. Ds were once again requested to rectify the leakage.

139.  However, although Madam Chan engaged a contractor to address the matter, no repairs were carried out to the floor drain or the wall in question.

140.  Water leakage in PL’s Premises got worse in mid-2017. In July and December 2017, Madam Chan was again notified by the Joint Office of the leakage in PL’s Premises. Thereafter, Madam Ho continued to make repeated complaints to Madam Chan about the ongoing issue. Yet, no action was taken by Ds.

141.  In June 2019, PL engaged Mr Yeung to conduct a condition survey. On 25 June 2019, a copy of Mr Yeung’s report, which concluded that the source of water leakage in PL’s Premises was from Ds’ Premises, was sent to Ds. In his covering letter, Mr Yeung requested Ds to take the necessary action to rectify the leakage. Once again, no action was taken by Ds.

142.  I am satisfied that Ds, at all material times, had actual knowledge of the water leakage in PL’s Premises but failed to take the necessary steps to abate the harm caused to PL’s Premises, PL, and his family.

143.  In the premises, Ds were both negligent and liable for nuisance.

144.  On the facts, Ds, being the legal owners of Ds’ Premises, were also in breach of clause 34H of BMO and clause 10 of the DMC, in that they failed to properly maintain their property (viz. Ds’ Premises) in good repair and condition, and allowed the same to become a nuisance, annoyance or inconvenience to PL and his family.

145.  Accordingly, Ds are liable for the loss and damage suffered.

J.  Ds’ CONDUCT WAS UNREASONABLE

146.  When the water leakage began in 2016, the Joint Office clearly identified the source as the floor drainage and wall of the bathroom in Unit 1. Nuisance Notice was issued to Ds. Nevertheless, they relied on the contractor's opinion that the drainage did not appear to be leaking, and chose not to carry out any repairs to the drainage or the wall.

147.  When Ds were notified by the Joint Office of further water leakage in 2017, they took no action to repair the floor drain or the bathroom wall in question.

148.  Ds continued to ignore Madam Ho’s complaints and the conclusion in Mr Yeung’s Condition Survey Report; no action was taken.

149.  After the commencement of the present proceedings, although Ds were aware that the floor drain in the bathroom had not been repaired, they falsely pleaded in their Defence that:

“Despite Ds’ renovation contractor not having found signs of water leakage/seepage, in about November 2016, repairs were nevertheless conducted to the entirety of the bathroom of Room 1 [Unit 1] of the Defendants’ Premises by, inter alia, replacing the water proofing layer, floor tiles, the toilet and the floor drain; Any water seepage was minor and limited to the floor drain in the bathroom of Room 1 of the Defendants’ Premises up until the renovation works conducted in November 2016.

Even if there was water leakage/seepage from the Defendants’ Premises, any alleged water leakage/seepage from the Defendants’ Premises was limited to minor seepage from the floor drain of the bathroom in Room 1 of the Defendants’ Premises and most importantly, had been repaired and had ceased as of November 2016” (emphasis added)

150.  Despite knowing that the above pleas were false, the 2^nd Defendant nevertheless signed the Statement of Truth, asserting their truthfulness. Had Ds honestly admitted that the floor drain, condemned by the Joint Office in 2016, had in fact not been repaired, the case would likely have been resolved at that stage.

151.  Instead, Ds chose to contest PL’s claim and engaged an expert to advance untenable arguments in these proceedings, including the baseless assertion that the floor drain had been repaired, in support of their defence.

152.  Following the completion of the water ponding tests in April 2023, Ds inexplicably cut off all water supply to their premises and vacated all the subdivided units, without notifying PL or the experts. The explanations offered by the 2^nd Defendant were unconvincing. Had Ds genuinely sought to demonstrate that their premises were not the source of the leakage as they claimed, they would have promptly checked with PL to ascertain whether the water leakage persisted. They failed to do so.

153.  Had Ds checked with PL, as any reasonable party would, they would have discovered that, once the water supply to their premises was cut off, the water leakage in PL’s Premises ceased. This would have constituted a strong indication that Ds’ Premises were the source of the leakage.

154.  By cutting off the water supply to Ds’ Premises, not only did they give PL the false impression that the sources of leakage had been addressed, but they also made further water tests in Ds’ Premises significantly more difficult, if not impossible. In my judgment, this was likely Ds’ intention.

155.  Later, when the Defence was amended in June 2024, Ds persisted in the false assertions within the Amended Defence that the floor drain in the bathroom of Unit 1 had been repaired in 2016.

156.  Had Ds acted reasonably since 2016, the issue of water leakage in PL’s Premises would likely have been resolved much earlier, sparing PL and his family from enduring such appalling living conditions for over a decade.

K.  INJUNCTION

157.  Although the water leakage in PL’s Premises ceased after May 2023, the sources of leakage in Ds’ Premises remain unresolved. Consequently, the leakage will inevitably resume once the water supply to Ds’ Premises is restored - a point acknowledged by the 2^nd Defendant in cross-examination. There is therefore a real risk of future interference with PL’s right by Ds. Furthermore, it appears that Ds have focused more on contesting PL’s claim than on addressing the sources of leakage or generating rental income from their premises. Accordingly, I am satisfied that an injunctive order is justified in these circumstances.

158.  With respect to the sources of water leakage, while I am satisfied that Ds’ Premises was the source, the extent and specific locations of seepage in PL’s Premises, as observed by the experts, indicate that the bathroom in Unit 1 is unlikely to be the sole cause. Additional sources may yet need to be identified. This conclusion is supported by: (a) the unsuccessful water ponding test in the bathroom of Unit 3, which rendered the corresponding result unreliable; (b) inconclusive negative ponding test results for the other bathrooms; (c) the watertightness of the bathroom walls used as shower cubicles, which remains untested by the experts; and (d) Mr Yeung’s opinion that the clear water droplets found on the wall of Bedroom 1 during the inspection on 6 April 2023 originated from sources other than the floor drain of Unit 1’s bathroom. Accordingly, the injunctive order should not be confined solely to rectifying the floor drainage and wall of the bathroom in Unit 1.

159.  In addition to the standard injunctive relief, Mr Ng urged the Court to issue a further order requiring Ds to provide a certificate of satisfaction regarding the rectification works, to be issued by an Authorised Person or other relevant professionals jointly appointed by the parties. While such an order is uncommon in water-leakage cases, it is not unprecedented; a similar order was granted in Chiu Yi Tung v Lo Yue Fung Franky and Another [2023] HKDC 1117.

160.  In this case, considering the following factors: (a) the questionable conduct of Ds and Mr Wu during the 17 March Incident; (b) Ds’ subsequent decision to secretly cut off all water supply to their premises in May/June 2023 without notifying PL or the experts, thereby giving PL the false impression that the water leakage had been resolved; and (c) the fact that reinstatement works in PL’s Premises cannot be effectively undertaken until remedial works in Ds’ Premises are satisfactorily completed, I consider it necessary to issue a further ancillary order specifying how Ds are to demonstrate compliance with the primary injunctive order to abate the water leakage.

L.  DAMAGES

161.  For the loss and damage suffered, PL claims the following:

(1)  Costs of repair and reinstatement of PL’s Premises: $438,400.30, which is based on Mr Yeung’s assessment of the reasonable costs in 2023;

(2)  Costs of replacement of the damaged furniture and personal belongings: (a) $11,000, being costs incurred for the repair work following the falling off of the air-conditioner, (b) $18,000 for replacement of the damaged furniture, and (c) $5,000 being a nominal sum to compensate PL for the damaged personal belongings;

(3)  Costs of alternative accommodation: $30,000;

(4)  Damages for distress, discomfort and inconvenience.

L1.  Costs of repair and reinstatement

162.  Mr Yeung did a survey of the damage caused to the interior of PL’s Premises and recommended the following work to be done by way of reinstatement:

(1)  Concrete repair work to be carried out at locations where there is concrete spalling or “hollow” concrete.

(2)  Reinstatement of finishes on all walls, beams and ceilings, including plastering, painting, as well as the ceramic tiles in the kitchen and the two bathrooms, in order to prevent colour variations.

(3)  Examination of the existing electrical system.

(4)  Replacement of the damaged wooden wall closet in Bedroom 1.

163.  Mr Wu was of the opinion that an examination of the existing electrical system was unnecessary. I disagree. Madam Ho testified that she experienced electric shocks from the switches in the area affected by water leakage. Given the safety implications, a comprehensive inspection of the electrical system in PL’s premises is clearly warranted. It should also be noted that, should any repairs to the electrical system be required following the inspection, the associated costs are not included in PL’s claim.

164.  Further taking into consideration of the damage done as shown in the photographs, I am satisfied that the reinstatement works recommended are reasonable in the circumstances.

165.  Based on Mr Yeung’s on-site inspection and measurements, he assessed the reinstatement costs at $438,400.30, including an additional 20% of the construction costs as preliminaries. I have no reason to doubt Mr Yeung’s assessment of the construction costs, nor do I find the 20% allowance for preliminaries unreasonable.

166.  I have also considered the corresponding quantum assessment of Mr Wu; however, not only had he not allowed any costs for the inspection of the electrical system, but he had also underestimated the quantities of work required. His assessment is therefore unreliable.

167.  Accordingly, this item is allowed in full.

168.  However, as Mr Yeung’s assessment was based on July 2023 costs, he stated that an annual increment of 3% to 5% should be applied for inflation. I have therefore adopted an annual increment of 4% to determine that the current reinstatement costs are approximately $491,000.

L2.  Costs of alternative accommodation

169.  Based on a reinstatement period of 3 months, PL claims a lump sum of $30,000 as the costs of alternative accommodation.

170.  In view of the nature of the reinstatement works to be performed, it is reasonable for the PL’s family to seek an alternative accommodation during the execution of the work. Although Mr Yeung has not expressed any view on the time required for the reinstatement works, the lump sum currently claimed by PL (which is deemed to include two sets of moving costs) does not appear to be excessive. This item is also allowed.

L3.  Costs of replacement of the damaged furniture and personal belongings

171.  Under this head, PL claims $11,000 for repair works necessitated by the fallen air-conditioner in 2022. This claim is supported by an invoice from Winner Engineer Company dated 28 July 2022. Ds have not disputed that the work described in the invoice was completed. Additionally, I note that Mr Yeung opined that the damage to the air-conditioner was caused by the water leakage. Accordingly, this item is allowed.

172.  In addition to the air-conditioner claim, PL seeks further compensation for the costs to be incurred for replacing damaged furniture and personal belongings, in a total sum of $23,000.

173.  However, no detailed list of the furniture and personal belongings to be replaced was provided; Mr Ng referred only to a set of photographs in support of this claim. The photographs show that certain wooden furniture - including a wardrobe, bed frame, mattress, and wall features - had been damaged by water. One photograph depicts a stack of clothes, but it is unclear from the image whether the clothes were damaged. Furthermore, Mr Yeung did not provide an assessment for these items.

174.  I note that Mr Yeung’s assessment of the costs for reinstatement works already included the replacement of a 1.1 m wide by 2 m high wooden wall closet - an item also visible in the photographs relied upon by Mr Ng. Allowing the full amount claimed would therefore result in duplication. Doing the best I can with the available evidence, I allow a lump sum of $10,000 for these items.

L4.  Damages for distress, discomfort and inconvenience

175.  It is firmly established that, under the law of nuisance or for breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC), an owner in occupation of a property is entitled to damages for distress, discomfort, and inconvenience arising from the defendant’s interference with their enjoyment of the property. Significantly, Mr Ismail did not contest this principle in either his written or oral submissions.

176.  In advancing this claim, Mr Ng referred me to a number of authorities in which varying amounts of damages for distress and discomfort - ranging from $80,000 to $200,000 - were awarded under different factual circumstances: Cheung Wu Yau Tao v Chui Siu Har [2020] HKDC 885; Chan Albert Koon Keung and Others v Yee Yun Tung [2020] HKDC 1201; Chiu Yi Tung v Lo Yue Fung Franky and Another [2023] HKDC 1117; and Loke Yuen Jean Tak Alice v Wong Kit Ying and Another [2019] HKCFI 1895.

177.  As for the suffering and inconvenience endured by PL and his family due to prolonged water leakage, Madam Ho provided the following evidence:

“16. 我們一家人自2016年3月開始至今一直受民安大廈4/F單位引致的嚴重漏水困擾，亦導致我家中各處嚴重損壞，包括天花石屎脫落及牆磚鬆脫、天花及牆身油漆破損滲透、傢俱及家中衣物損壞等等。

17. 在冷氣機附近的漏水更有觸電和漏電的危險，令我和家人十分害怕。

18. 天花的石屎脫落嚴重，連鋼筋也外露出來，令我和家人每天都擔驚受怕，不知何時會被脫落的石屎擊中頭部，也擔心樓宇的結構安全，我們一家隨時都有生命危險。

19. 因家中各處漏水到自家裏出現多處水漬水印，也發出難聞的臭味。

20. 總括而言，因為樓上(民安大廈4/F) 的嚴重漏水令我和家人不能安心地住在家中，每天都擔驚受怕，家裏惡劣的環境也影響家人之間的關係。

23. 如上所述，我們一家至2016年3月開始至今一直受被告人引致的漏水困擾。這段日子我不斷地向相關政府部門投訴及跟進，為了這次無妄之災不斷奔波。我和丈夫年事已高，丈夫身體不好，我的工作也10分忙碌，漏水的事確實令我心力交瘁。

24. 原本是能讓我和家人安心居住的家，卻因源 自被告人的漏水已導致我們一連串嚴重的痛苦、不便和煩擾，…”

178.  In light of the appalling conditions in PL’s Premises - as demonstrated by the extensive photographic evidence submitted by the parties and the testimony of Madam Ho - I am satisfied that the distress, discomfort, and inconvenience suffered by PL and his family in this instance was at least comparable to, if not more severe than, those considered by the court in Cheung Wu Yau Tao. Accordingly, I consider an award of $200,000 appropriate under this head of damages.

M.  CONCLUSION

179.  For the above reasons, I give judgment in favour of PL. There shall be an injunction against Ds on the following terms:

(1)  The Defendants, by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise howsoever shall restrain from causing and/or allowing the water seepage from Ds’ Premises to PL’s Premises;

(2)  The Defendants, by themselves, their servants or agents or otherwise, shall forthwith carry out and, within 70 days from the date of this judgment, complete all due repairs to abate and prevent water seepage from Ds’ Premises to PL’s Premises, with a certificate of satisfaction to be issued by an independent Authorized Person, qualified building surveyor or engineer to be jointly appointed by the parties and at Ds’ expenses; and

(3)  There shall be liberty to apply if the parties fail to agree on the candidate to be appointed referred to in paragraph (2) above.

180.  Further, subject to the first charge of the Director of Legal Aid, I award damages to PL in a total sum of $731,000, inclusive of the general damages for distress, discomfort and inconvenience of $200,000. Interest shall run on the general damages at 2% per annum from the date of the service of the Writ to the date of this judgment. Further interest on the total sum of $731,000 shall run from the date of this judgment at the judgment rate until payment in full.

181.  I further grant a costs order nisi that Ds shall pay PL’s costs of this action (including all costs reserved, if any) to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed. And PL’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. The said costs order nisi shall become absolute unless an application to vary is made within 14 days.

182.  Lastly, I thank Mr Ng and Mr Ismail for their assistance on this matter.