香港公正行 滲水調查及驗樓領導權威︱驗樓︱漏水︱滲水︱裝修︱賠償︱索償︱公正行︱公證行︱公証行︱法庭專家︱專家證人︱專家証人︱驗樓師

法庭評價  (節錄部份法庭判案書內部份內容以供參考)   

土地審裁處  (法庭案件編號 LDBM 18/2014)

-申請人在2013年12月14日委託了香港公正行有限公司作調查,以找出12G單位內滲漏的源頭,

調查由專家證人劉珊娜女士("劉女士")負責。(第12段)

-在考慮過雙方的證供後,本席認為申請人一方已成功舉證,12G單位的滲漏情況,源自13G單位的主廁及客廁地台。(第24段)

-答辯人曾提出,滲漏可能是從外牆破損引起,唯本席接納劉女士的證供,她已就此一可能性作出調查,亦撇除了此一可能性。本席認為答辯人所指外牆滲漏情況並不存在。(第31段)

-申請人又要求答辯人賠償,因滲漏造成12G單位破損的維修費。本席在看過劉女士在報告內所開列項目及數額,接納為合理的維修及花費。(第40段)

區域法院  (法庭案件編號 DCCJ 3010/2015) 

-本席認為劉女士的意見非常詳盡，她所作的推斷及分析都是基於測試所得的數據。本席認為

雙方專家意見出現分歧時，採納劉女士的意見比較穩妥。(第12段)

區域法院  (法庭案件編號 DCCJ 2792/2011) 

-本席亦接受劉女士的證供，認為在2012年5月21日被告物業並無漏水，在2011年8月31日也

沒有漏水。她的報告較嚴謹及詳細，具備多種測試，測試的手法也較嚴謹。(第26段)

區域法院  (法庭案件編號 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)

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

findings in the 2 reports. (Clause 14) 

區域法院  (法庭案件編號 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  (法庭案件編號 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)

備註欄:

(1) 透過公正行專家報告, 大部份滲水問題或爭議已可透過協商、談判、調解、仲裁方式解決。

(2) 一般情況下，法庭訴訟應是解決滲水問題或滲水爭議的最後選擇方案。

(3) 本行建議採取或進行任何法律行動或訴訟前應自行充分咨詢法律意見。