LDBM 320/2014

[2023] HKLdT 39

IN THE LANDS TRIBUNAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

BUILDING MANAGEMENT APPLICATION NO 320 OF 2014

__________________________

BETWEEN

_________________

JUDGMENT

_________________

The Applications

1. This is a hearing for assessment of damages. There is a related summons for an injunction against the 1 ^st respondent which is heard at the same time.

Background Facts

2. The applicant is the owner of Flat No. 4B, Block 6, Hamburg Villa, Nos. 8 & 10 Eastbourne Road, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“Flat 4B”). Flat 4B is one of the units on the top floor of Block 6, Hamburg Villa. And the 1 ^st respondent is the incorporated owners of Hamburg Villa.

3. There is an earlier action, LDBM 87/2010, when the applicant claims against the 1 ^st respondent for leakage of water through the roof to Flat 4B. It is found after trial (with judgment given on 27 January 2012 by Deputy District Judge Kot (as she then was)) that the source of leakage was from a flushing water tank on the roof which is to be maintained by the 1 ^st respondent. Damages was awarded to the applicant including costs for renovation of Flat 4B.

4. And after the judgment in LDBM 87/2010, it is the applicant’s case that, renovation was carried out at Flat 4B. Then the applicant found that there is further water leakage to Flat 4B causing further damages to Flat 4B, which is the subject claim of this application which has been taken out in 2014.

5. Initially, the applicant acted in person but later she is acting through solicitors. According to the Re-re-amended Notice of Application filed on 25 July 2016, the applicant avers that the 2 ^nd respondent is the owner of Flat 4A of the said Block 6, the other unit on the top floor of Block 6 adjacent to Flat 4B. The roofs on Flat 4A and Flat 4B are in the management and control of the 1 ^st respondent. It is claimed that, in breach of the Deed of Mutual Covenant applicable to the Hamburg Villa, the 2 ^nd respondent wrongfully occupied the roof and erected fence to the roof, which damaged the waterproofing membrane in the floor slab of the roof, causing water to seep or leak into Flat 4B one month after the said renovation was completed. It is claimed that the 1 ^st respondent also has liability. While the applicant has discontinued the claim against the 2 ^nd respondent, this is the background information which has to be considered with the claim for injunction which I shall come to later.

Damages and Reliefs Claimed

6. The applicant set out the items of damages that she claims that are due to leakage in her Re-re-amended Notice of Application, including