hksurveyors

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)

-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) 

-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) 

-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 3244/2015) 

-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) 

-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) 

-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) 

-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) 

-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) 

- After perusing Ms Lau’s curriculum vitae annexed to the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd report, I found that these further

damages are supported by evidence. (Clause16)

- On the other hand, according to the 2^nd 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 2^nd expert report.  There is no basis

to suggest that the amount stated in the 2^nd 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) 

- 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。