TAM CHUN PONG v. LEUNG SIU CHING AND ANOTHER

DCCJ 6548/2025

[2026] HKDC 488

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 6548 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

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

1.  This is a water seepage case.

2.  The Plaintiff applied by summons dated 21 January 2026, pursuant to O 19 r 7 of the Rules of the District Court, for default judgment upon the default of the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants (“Defendants”) in filing an Acknowledgment of Service with Notice of Intention to Defend.

3.  At the conclusion of the hearing, I acceded to the application and entered judgment for the Plaintiff and made an order as set out in paragraph 9 below. These are my reasons.

4.  By the affirmation of Wong Chuk Nga filed on 10 March 2026, I was satisfied that the Writ of Summons herein endorsed with the Statement of Claim has been duly served to the Defendants by inserting on 2 December 2025 the envelope containing the Writ and properly addressed to the Defendants into the letter box at and for the last known address of the Defendants, which is the address of Ds’ Property (defined below). I was also satisfied that the present summons was duly served to the Defendants in the same manner on 21 January 2026.

5.  The Defendants were absent at the hearing and in the premises I proceeded with the hearing in their absence.

6.  The legal principles relating to such an application are trite and I do not need to repeat them here.

7.  The Statement of Claim pleaded that:

(a)  The Plaintiff is and was the registered owner of 6^th Floor, Vico Mansion, No 5 Nanking Street, Kowloon (“P’s Property”), while the Defendants were and are the registered owners the premises directly above, namely 7^th Floor of the same building (“Ds’ Property”);

(b)  As owners, they were and are subject to and bound by the Deed of Mutual Covenant dated 17 June 1970 pertaining to that building and registered by memorial no UB745915, and clauses 7 and 11 of which provide that an owner is responsible for repairing maintaining and upkeeping the part he/she is entitled to exclusive possession and that an owner shall not cause, suffer or permit a nuisance to the occupation of the other parts of the building;

(c)  Further and alternatively, the Defendants are obligated by section 34H of the Building Management Ordinance and/or under a common law duty to maintain Ds’ Property in good repair and condition, and not cause harm to P’s Property;

(d)  Since early 2023, there was water leakage into P’s Property causing various damage to the ceilings of the kitchen, bedrooms and living room of P’s Property as coloured in blue in the plan annexed to the Statement of Claim;

(e)  The report dated 18 August 2025 of Prime Corporation Development Limited, engaged by the Plaintiff to inspect and investigate by different tests regarding the cause of the water leakage, concluded that the said water leakage into P’s Property was caused by the defective sanitary fitment and/or waterproof membrane of Ds’ Property;

(f)  Despite a demand by solicitors’ letter dated 29 August 2025, the Defendants did not take remedial action to repair and stop the water leakage; and

(g)  The water leakage was a nuisance, and the failure to remedy it is a breach of the said section 34H and/or the said common law duty, which has been and will continue to cause damage to P’s Property.

8.  According to the averments so pleaded, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed.

9.  I therefore acceded to the application and entered interlocutory judgment on liability against the Defendants with damages to be assessed, granted the mandatory injunction largely in terms as prayed for in the Statement of Claim ordering the Defendants to take such necessary action at their own costs to stop the water leakage but changed the time for compliance to within 12 weeks after the due service of the sealed judgment on them and deleted the part stipulating that the remedial repair work has to be to the satisfaction of an Authorized Person to be engaged by the Plaintiff whose costs are to be paid by the Defendants (which requirement I do not think is justified nor fair to the Defendants), and ordered the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the costs of this action on liability, including the costs of this application, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.

10.  I thank Ms Mok for her assistance.