China Fair Land (Qingdao) Ltd v Lo Sum Sum [2024] 5 HKLRD 104, [2024] HKDC 1579
Pauline Leung represented the defendant in China Fair Land (Qingdao) Ltd v Lo Sum Sum [2024] 5 HKLRD 104, [2024] HKDC 1579.
This was the assessment of damages in a case arising from water seepage from D’s flat to the flat immediately below (the Property) owned by P, a company. The Property had always been leased out by P, save for certain vacancy periods which P alleged to be unusually long and entirely attributable to the water seepage problem. Judgment on liability was entered against D seven years ago before the assessment of damages. However, D had still failed to properly repair her flat in order to stop the seepage. P claimed for: (i) repair costs; (ii) loss of rent, which encompassed the periods of vacancy arising from the delays in renting the property out as well as the diminishment of its rental value; (iii) the labour costs incurred for handling the water seepage problem; and (iv) general damages. D objected to the claim for general damages, primarily on the basis that given that P was a corporate landlord leasing the property out for rental income at all material times, it had not suffered from any inconvenience and/or discomfort.
Held, awarding damages in the total sum of $552,506, including general damages, that what appeared to be problematic in P’s claim of general damages was not the fact that it was a corporate owner. Rather, it was the fact that the property was always leased out. The discomfort and inconvenience caused by the water seepage problem had both been compensated in the form of loss of rent and the labour costs. That said, the exceptional duration of the water seepage problem, which was substantially contributed by D’s persistent failure to carry out the necessary repair work, must have caused extra inconvenience to P which was not yet compensated by the labour costs. The negotiation with potential tenants would be more complicated and time consuming, and the recurrent need to handle the water seepage problem must have caused inconvenience to P’s operation that was yet to be reflected by the labour costs alone. General damages compensating such extra inconvenience were assessed at $30,000 (Putai Ltd v Yau Lee Ho (DCCJ 2666/2013, [2017] HKEC 2733), Gwong Leung Property Holdings Ltd v Wong Kwok Tsoi [2022] HKDC 946, 方寶儀 v 涵碧別墅業主立案法團 [2023] HKLdT 39, Top Victory (Asia) Ltd v Kong Shui Sun [2023] HKDC 1697 considered; Well Force Co Ltd v Boomway (Hong Kong) Ltd (HCA 4480/1994, [1998] HKEC 80), Century Way Investment Ltd v Willbert Ltd (DCCJ 3710/2013, [2016] HKEC 2764), Crystal Bright Holdings Ltd v Allen Industries Ltd (DCCJ 2815/2015, [2017] HKEC 1151), Rainbow More Ltd v Incorporated Owners of Arcadia [2018] HKLdT 30 distinguished). (See paras.55-69.)
[The above is excerpted from the headnote to the report in HKLRD.]
