DCCJ 482/2019

[2024] HKDC 1331

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 482 OF 2019

——————————

BETWEEN

——————————

———————————————

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

———————————————

Introduction

1. This is the assessment of damages arising out of a water seepage dispute.

2. At the material times, the 1 ^st Plaintiff and the 2 ^nd Plaintiff (the “ Plaintiffs ”) are and were the registered owners of G/F and Garden, 180C Shek Po Tsuen, Yuen Long, New Territories (the “ Property ”) and have been living at the Property. The Defendant is and was the registered owner of 1/F, 180C Shek Po Tsuen, Yuen Long, New Territories, which is located directly above the Property (“ D’s Property ”).

Procedural Background

3. On 29 January 2019, the Plaintiffs commenced the present action for damages against the Defendant based on nuisance, negligence, and breach of the relevant deed of mutual covenant.

4. On 12 July 2019, interlocutory judgment was entered against the Defendant with damages to be assessed (the “ Interlocutory Judgment ”). The Court has also ordered the Defendant to take all reasonable steps at his own costs to prevent water from leaking, dripping and/or seeping from D’s Property to the Property within 8 weeks days from the date of service of the Order.

5. On 18 December 2020, the Plaintiffs issued a Notice of Appointment of Assessment of Damages.

6. By the Order dated 1 March 2021, the Court gave directions as to the filing of evidence for assessment of damages. The Defendant who failed to comply with the said directions is deemed to have elected not to adduce any evidence at the assessment hearing.

7. By the Order dated 13 June 2022, the Court has set the case down for trial. Up until the date of the said Order, the Defendant had not participated in these proceedings.

8. On 13 November 2023, the Defendant appeared in person and indicated that he wishes to contest the hearing. At the occasion, the Court has explained to the Defendant that, the hearing is for the assessment of damages, and separate applications would have to be made if there is any dispute as to liability. The Defendant then applied for an adjournment for him to consider the Plaintiffs’ evidence and to consider taking out applications to adduce evidence and to dispute liability.

9. After hearing from parties, trial was adjourned to the present hearing with costs to the Plaintiffs. On the same day, it was ordered that, unless the Defendant takes out any applications at least 28 days prior to the adjourned hearing, the Plaintiffs shall have leave to adduce their expert report as evidence without calling the maker thereof. There were also directions given for the Defendant to lodge and serve written subm