-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)
區域法院 (法庭案件編號 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)
區域法院 (法庭案件編號 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)
區域法院 (法庭案件編號 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)
區域法院 (法庭案件編號 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