hksurveyors

渗水调查及验楼领导权威 
查询热线: 26690228  WhatApp: 94109768

即时查询按键

 
   
-    
关于我们   
媒体报导   
公司新闻   
公司理念   
专家资历   
渗水调查   
渗水个案   
渗水科学   
渗水科技   
渗水须知   
漏水貼士   
結構檢驗   
装修检验   
装修须知   
楼宇检验   
验楼须知   
验楼标准   
渗水标准   
漏水法律   
法庭案例   
法庭评价   
联络我们   

 

法庭评价  (节录部份法庭判案书内部份内容以供参考)   

 

土地审裁处  (法庭案件编号 LDBM 18/2014) (请按查阅全文)

-申请人在2013年12月14日委托了香港公正行有限公司作调查,以找出12G单位内渗漏的源头,

调查由专家证人刘珊娜女士("刘女士")负责。(第12段)

-在考虑过双方的证供后,本席认为申请人一方已成功举证,12G单位的渗漏情况,源自13G单位的主厕及客厕地台(第24段)

-答辩人曾提出,渗漏可能是从外墙破损引起,唯本席接纳刘女士的证供,她已就此一可能性作出调查,亦撇除了此一可能性本席认为答辩人所指外墙渗漏情况并不存在(第31段)

-申请人又要求答辩人赔偿,因渗漏造成12G单位破损的维修费本席在看过刘女士在报告内所开列项目及数额,接纳为合理的维修及花费(第40段)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 3010/2015) (请按查阅全文)

-本席认为刘女士的意见非常详尽,她所作的推断及分析都是基于测试所得的数据。本席认为

双方专家意见出现分歧时,采纳刘女士的意见比较稳妥(第12段)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 2792/2011) (请按查阅全文) 

-本席亦接受刘女士的证供,认为在2012年5月21日被告物业并无漏水,在2011年8月31日也

没有漏水。她的报告较严谨及详细具备多种测试测试的手法也较严谨。(第26段)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 914/2019) (请按查阅全文)

-虽然上述理由足以解决有关渗漏来源的问题,但在任何情况下本席认为刘女士(包括以

下)的分析令人信服∶(第79段)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 4732/2014) (请按查阅全文)

-在2018年6月份联合陈述书中,双方专家同意原告物业没有再受渗水影响及已经完成全屋室

内装修工程。香港公正行的刘珊娜小姐(「刘小姐」)的意见是渗漏是由于被告低层天台的供

水喉管出现渗漏所导致,她的理据包括了2014公正行报告的各项测试结果及管理处于2014

年撰写的报告(「管理处2014报告」) 等。(第9段)

 

-总括议题(A)(2),即专家意见的可靠性,本席接纳原告方的证据及专家意见,认为足以排除

原告热水炉房内藏喉管是2014年渗漏事件的源头。(第120段)

 

-本席接纳刘小姐的意见,2014漏水事件源头在被告热水炉房内的喉管。(第143段)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 469/2013) (请按查阅全文)

-原告人传召三位证人,包括两位原告人及专家证人刘珊娜女士(“刘女士”)。(第7段)

-本席亦接纳原告人的专家证人刘女士的证供。她认为该单位渗漏的源头“为雨水通过水箱外

墙的裂痕,水箱的外墙包括水箱顶头的外墙,水喉管旁,及水箱侧面的外墙”。所谓水箱侧面

的外墙,其实是该单位的外墙。(第10段)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 3244/2015) (请按查阅全文)

-In view of the above, I think it is fair to say the methodology of P's expert is more comprehensive than those of D's expert. The investigation by P's expert is in general more serious, solid and professional, whereas the D's expert appeared to be rather sloppy. Hence, the expert opinion of P shall be preferred. (Clause 27)

-I am inclined to prefer Ms Lau's opinion on quantum issue, as her view in this regard is generally more soild and with more supporting evidence than Mr Lo's. (Clause 44)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 4020/2012) (请按查阅全文)

-I have no doubt about the expertise and qualification of Lau. She gave firm answers with full explanations based on objective test results recorded in her report during cross-examination. (Clause 85)

-Having considered Lau's detailed report in the light of the other available materials and

evidence, and heard her evidence given at trial, I find her a professional and reliable

expert witness. I accept her evidence. (Clause 86)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 17/2016) (请按查阅全文)

-I find Ms Lau’s approach in the preparation of the Joint Report more disciplined and

scientific.  In my opinion, she is also a much more straightforward and direct witness

when giving evidence in court.  She gave her evidence in a no nonsense and

unequivocal manner. (Clause 86)

 

-And an experienced expert, I have no doubt that Ms Lau would have taken every care to

ensure that the probe would be placed upon the same position as marked by her.  While Mr

Lam’s criticism may be valid on a theoretical basis, I am of opinion that it would affect very

little of Ms Lau’s overall opinion which was reached after taking in the consideration

of number of tests and not relying on one single test only. (Clause 90)

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 2815/2015) (请按查阅全文)

-Ms Lau did not come to the conclusion by the Infra-red scanning at the light well alone,

but based on the multiple tests results and eliminated “light well” as a source of water

seepage. (Clause 31)

 

-I am satisfied that the overall reliability of Ms Lau’s findings is not affected by the

limitation of infra-red scanning at the light well because of the above reasons.

(Clause 32)

 

-I have no difficulty to accept P’s expert opinion and reject D’s expert evidence.

(Clause 38) 

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 3071/2017) (请按查阅全文)

-She engaged Hong Kong Survey Limited (“HKSL”) to inspect and identify the source of

the water seepage, HKSL in the inspection report dated 21 January 2017 concluded that

the water seepage originated from the Defendant's premises.. (Clause 8)

 

-Evidence of Mrs. Chan and the 2 reports prepared by Ms. Lau are unchallenged.  I also

consider such evidence to be reasonable and credible.  I accept the evidence of Mrs.

Chan in full.  I also accept Ms. Lau as an expert in the field of water leakage and her

findings in the 2 reports. (Clause 14) 

 

 

区域法院  (法庭案件编号 DCCJ 1184/2020) (请按查阅全文)

-After perusing Ms Lau’s curriculum vitae annexed to the 2nd expert report, I am satisfied

that she is qualified to give expert opinion in respect of the cause of the damages to

the Plaintiffs’ flat, the remedial works that needed to be carried out, and the costs of such

works. (Clause 8)

 

-As indicated in the 2nd expert report, the expert had undertaken an on-site inspection on

29 October 2021.  On the whole, I accept the expert opinion to be both plausible and

reliable. (Clause 8) 

 

-Having perused the photographs annexed to the 2nd report, I found that these further

damages are supported by evidence. (Clause16)

 

-On the other hand, according to the 2nd expert report, the reasonable costs for the

relevant works to be done as observed during the inspections took place in 2019 (which

was however after the temporary remedial works had been taken) amounted to

$44,668.80. I find this figure more reliable. I would award this amount in full instead.

(Clause 22)

 

-Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Plaintiffs are entitled to claim against the Defendants

for the costs of further remedial works as stated in the 2nd expert report.  There is no

basis to suggest that the amount stated in the 2nd expert report ($62,404) was

excessive or unreasonable.  I would also award this amount in full. (Clause 25)

 

 

高等法院  (法庭案件编号 HCA 1010/2019) (请按查阅全文)

-Meanwhile, the plaintiff had engaged Ms Lau Shan La (“Ms Lau”), a surveyor of Hong

Kong Survey Ltd, who inspected 35D in November and December 2016. She did not

have access to 36D. She issued a report dated 11 January 2017, concluding that the

water seepage in 35D had originated from the faulty waterproof layer of the bathroom floor

slab and related drainage pipes of 36D. (Clause 10)

 

-Ms Lau investigated in 35D on three occasions in November and December 2016. She

observed that there were water stains, spalled concrete and exposed steel bars in the

ceiling of the master bathroom, and also spalled concrete and exposed steel bars in the

ceiling of the guest bathroom. Infrared scans showed abnormally cool areas in the

ceilings, indicating water seepage as Mr Tang acknowledged. Electrical conductivity

tests also showed water seepage in the ceilings. Microwave scans showed more

moisture at 110 mm depth than at 30 mm depth, and from the pattern of the

tomography Ms Lau reasoned that the moisture had come from above. In her oral

evidence she gave further explanation of this reasoning which I accept. She also

made visual inspection and infrared scan of the external wall of the two flats, which did not

reveal any leakage there. (Clause 20)

 

-On balance, I prefer the opinion of Ms Lau on this point: (Clause 31)

 

-The plaintiff does not have to prove the cause of seepage to a certainty. Having evaluated

the evidence, I consider that the plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities, i.e.

that it is more likely than not, that the water seepage had originated from the bathroom of

36D. It follows that the defendant is liable in both tort and contract as alleged by the

plaintiff. (Clause 52)

 

 

备注栏:

(1) 透过公正行专家报告, 大部份渗水问题或争议已可透过协商谈判调解仲裁方式解决

(2) 一般情况下,法庭诉讼应是解决渗水问题或渗水争议的最后选择方案。

(3) 本行建议采取或进行任何法律行动或诉讼前应自行充分咨询法律意见

 香港公正行有限公司  Hong Kong Survey Limited

 地址: 香港粉岭安乐村安居街30号新宁中心315室

 电话: 26690228    WhatsApp: 94109768    传真: 37472629 

 网址: www.hksurveyors.com    电邮: [email protected] 


Copyright © 2012-2024 Hong Kong Survey Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by ABCHK.com