區域法院（雜項）Deputy District Judge Vincent Lung1/2/2026[2026] HKDC 220
DCMP4564/2025
A A
B B
DCMP 4564/2025
[2026] HKDC 220 C
C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4564 OF 2025
F F
------------------------------------
G
IN THE MATTER OF Shop on First G
Floor together with Part of the
Staircase landing on G/F & The
H H
Staircase leading from G/F to 1/F
Westview Height No. 163 Belcher’s
I Street, Hong Kong I
J And J
K IN THE MATTER OF sections 47B, K
47C and 47D of the District Court
L
Ordinance (Cap. 336) of the Laws of L
Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region
M M
------------------------------------
N
BETWEEN N
J & T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Plaintiff
O （銳達國際有限公司） O
and
P ZHANG CHENG 1st Defendant P
ZHENG TINGTING 2nd Defendant
Q Q
ZHANG ANRUO 3rd Defendant
R FAN CHUN YEUNG 4th Defendant R
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
S WESTVIEW HEIGHT 5th Defendant S
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
T
T KAM TONG BUILDING 6th Defendant
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
------------------------------------
C C
Before: Deputy District Judge Vincent Lung in Chambers (Open to Public)
D Date of Hearing: 2 February 2026 D
Date of Decision: 2 February 2026
E E
Date of Reasons for Decision: 10 February 2026
F F
--------------------------------------------
G REASONS FOR DECISION G
--------------------------------------------
H H
I I
1. This is a water seepage case affecting the Shop on 1/F together
with part of the staircase landing on G/F and the staircase leading from G/F J
J
to 1/F, Westview Height, No. 163 Belcher’s Street, Hong Kong (the
K
K “Affected Premises”).
L L
2. The Plaintiff (“P”) is the registered owner of the Affected
M M
Premises. It has commissioned 2 (provisional) expert reports from its
N
expert Mr. Siu to identify possible sources of the water seepage. These N
possible sources include Flats 2A, 2B and 2C (which are units above the
O O
Affected Premises) and also the neighbouring building known as Kam
P Tong Building across the movement joint. Mr. Siu’s reports are P
provisional because he was unable to have access to all the relevant parts
Q Q
and units.
R R
3. By Originating Summons issued on 13 August 2025, P
S S
essentially asks for pre-action discovery to gain access to Flats 2A, 2B, 2C
T and the relevant parts of Kam Tong Building such that its expert may carry T
out further tests to identify the exact source(s) of seepage, pursuant to
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
section 47D of the District Court Ordinance (Cap.336) and Order 29 r.7A
of the Rules of the District Court (Cap.336H). C
C
D
D 4. The 1st to 4th Defendants (“D1” to “D4” respectively) are the
E
owners of Flats 2A, 2B and 2C. The 5th Defendant (“D5”) is the E
incorporate owners of Westview Height (it is also possible that the
F F
common part of Westview Height is a source of seepage), and the 6 th
G
Defendant (“D6”) is the incorporate owners of Kam Tong Building. G
H H
5. All parties attended the hearing on 2 February 2026 except D3
I and D4. I am satisfied that they have been properly notified of the hearing. I
D3 had previously written to the Court indicating his stance on the
J J
Originating Summons and asking for his attendance to be excused. As to
K D4, he was in correspondence (including without prejudice K
correspondence) with P’s solicitors. I therefore proceeded with the hearing
L L
in their absence.
M M
6. Upon hearing the parties at the hearing, I made the following
N N
orders:
O O
(i) D6 shall inform P in writing within 7 days from the date
P P
of the order the identity of its expert who would take
Q part in the test(s); Q
R R
(ii) An order that P and its expert be granted access to the
S parts and units which P’s expert identified to be S
potential sources of seepage in his 2 expert reports
T T
dated 10 March 2025 and 5 August 2025 in order to
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
carry out necessary and appropriate test(s) to identify
the precise source(s) of seepage, and to take C
C
photographs and notes in relation thereto;
D D
E
(iii) Any expert(s) engaged by D1-D5 may attend and E
observe the test(s) conducted at Westview Height as
F F
they consider appropriate and to take photographs and
G
notes in relation thereto; G
H H
(iv) Any expert engaged by D6 may attend and observe the
I test(s) conducted at Kam Tong Building as well as the I
movement joint as he considers appropriate and to take
J J
photographs and notes in relation thereto;
K K
(v) P and its expert shall liaise with the experts engaged by
L L
D1-D6 in good time regarding the testing methodology
M and the time for the test(s); M
N N
(vi) For the avoidance of doubt, the costs of engaging the
O experts shall not form part of the costs of compliance O
with this order. Each party shall bear its/their own costs
P P
of engaging the experts;
Q Q
(vii) P shall bear all the Defendants’ reasonable costs of
R R
compliance with this order, to be taxed if not agreed;
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(viii) Subject to paragraph (vii) above, there shall be no order
as to costs of this action between P and D3, D4, D5 and C
C
D6;
D D
E
(ix) P shall bear D1 and D2’s costs of this action on an E
indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, summarily
F F
assessed at HK$35,000;
G G
(x) There be liberty to apply.
H H
I 7. These are my brief reasons for making that order. I
J J
Access should be granted in relation to Kam Tong Building
K K
8. All of D1-D5 indicated that they are content to allow P and its
L L
expert to have access to their respective parts and units. The only party
M substantively opposing access is D6. Mr. Chan for D6 submits that Kam M
Tong Building is structurally separate from Westview Height. Further, P’s
N N
expert says that rainwater seeped through the external wall of Westview
O Height and this (Mr. Chan submits) must mean that Westview Height’s O
own external wall must have been problematic or defective for this to
P P
happen. The thrust of Mr. Chan’s submission is that it was impossible for
Q water to have seeped from Kam Tong Building to the Affected Premises, Q
and it is unnecessary for P and its expert to gain access to Kam Tong
R R
Building.
S S
9. I am unable to accept Mr. Chan’s submission. It is
T T
inconsistent with the only piece of expert opinion before me (albeit
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B provisional), being that of P’s expert who has identified Kam Tong B
Building as a possible source of seepage, and there is no material before C
C
me to conclude that P’s expert opinion is plainly and obviously incorrect.
D D
Once it is accepted that Kam Tong Building is a possible source of seepage
E
at least on a prima facie basis, I see no reason to deny access to P and its E
expert such that conclusive tests may be conducted to ascertain whether it
F F
is in fact a source of seepage. If Mr. Chan is indeed correct, after tests
G
have been conducted by P’s expert, the test result would be negative. G
H H
Engagement and attendance of the Defendants’ own expert(s)
I I
10. In the correspondences between the parties there was a debate
J J
as to whether a single joint expert should be engaged (as compared to the
K position where parties would engage their own experts), the methodology K
that should be adopted for the test(s) and who should be responsible for the
L L
costs of the expert(s).
M M
11. At the hearing I explained to the parties my provisional view
N N
that none of these issues are really engaged in these proceedings, the
O substantive relief of which is only to allow P and its expert to have access O
such that test(s) may be conducted. It is not a matter that I require expert’s
P P
assistance (whether as a single joint expert or otherwise). This is
Q fundamentally different from an action commenced for substantive relief Q
for the seepage (there may well be one in due course depending on the tests
R R
results) where the trial judge seized of the matter will have to decide how
S best he may be assisted by experts in determining the source(s) of the S
seepage and attributing liability if there are multiple sources. It is only in
T T
that action that the issue of the desirability of whether to engage a single
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
joint expert arises (such that, for example, there is no utility for parties to
file their expert reports in this action). C
C
D D
12. The parties expressed no strong objection on my preliminary
E
view. On that premise, it is not for the Court (still less the Defendants) to E
dictate or decide who P might decide to engage to conduct the upcoming
F F
tests. Take an extreme example: even if P decides to engage someone who
G
has no qualification and experience whatsoever to conduct the upcoming G
tests, there is still no reason for anyone to interfere; P would do so at its
H H
own peril because in future substantive proceedings the “lay opinion” (if
I adduced) may well turn out to be unreliable or incorrect, and P might have I
sued the wrong defendant. The same logic applies to the methodology
J J
proposed to be adopted by P’s expert.
K K
13. At the same time, the Court is not concerned whether the
L L
Defendants (or any of them) intend to engage their own expert(s) to
M oversee, observe or supervise the upcoming tests to be conducted by P’s M
expert. If the Defendants consider it desirable it is their own choice; my
N N
decision in these proceedings is only to allow access to be given to P and
O its nominated expert (in crude terms, someone will open the door). The O
reliability or credibility of P’s expert opinion is not an issue for these
P P
proceedings (again in crude terms, whether the person opening the door is
Q an expert or a domestic helper does not matter). Q
R R
14. It follows from these points that if any of the Defendants
S decide to engage their own expert(s) to observe the upcoming tests, it is S
purely a matter of personal choice and they would have to pay from their
T T
own pockets. I made it clear that if any of the Defendants would engage
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
an expert to observe the tests, those costs should not be regarded as costs
of complying with this order. C
C
D D
Costs of compliance and costs of the action
E E
15. I ordered P to bear each of the Defendants’ reasonable costs
F F
of complying with the order, to be taxed if not agreed. After all, they have
G
been compelled to give access. I further note the default position under G
Order 62 r.3(12) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap.336H).
H H
I 16. As to the costs of the action, the starting point under Order 62 I
r.3(12) is for P to pay costs of and incidental to the application “unless the
J J
Court otherwise directs”. D3 (in his letter to the Court), D5 and D6 made
K it clear that they do not ask for costs. D4 in his without prejudice letter to K
P’s solicitors also stated implicitly that he is not seeking costs against P.
L L
In these circumstances, I made no order as to costs of this action amongst
M these parties. M
N N
17. As for D1 and D2, I see no exceptional circumstances to
O depart from the starting point. Given that there was only 1 solicitors’ letter O
sent by D1 and D2 and they did not file any affirmation in opposition,
P P
having regard to the costs claimed in the Statement of Costs, I summarily
Q assessed those costs (on an indemnity basis and covering counsel’s Q
attendance) at HK$35,000.
R R
S S
( Vincent Lung )
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B Ms Sharon Ng, instructed by Kevin Ng & Co, for the plaintiff B
C Mr Jason Tang, instructed by Ma Tang & Co, for 1st and 2nd defendants C
D The 3rd and 4th defendants were not represented and did not appear D
E
Mr Chiu Wai Tung of Chen & Lee Law Office, for 5th defendant E
Mr Chan Siu Chung of S.C. Chan & Co, for 6th defendant
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V
DCMP4564/2025 J & T INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ZHANG CHENG AND OTHERS - LawHero
A A
B B
DCMP 4564/2025
[2026] HKDC 220 C
C
D D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
E
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION E
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 4564 OF 2025
F F
------------------------------------
G
IN THE MATTER OF Shop on First G
Floor together with Part of the
Staircase landing on G/F & The
H H
Staircase leading from G/F to 1/F
Westview Height No. 163 Belcher’s
I Street, Hong Kong I
J And J
K IN THE MATTER OF sections 47B, K
47C and 47D of the District Court
L
Ordinance (Cap. 336) of the Laws of L
Hong Kong Special Administrative
Region
M M
------------------------------------
N
BETWEEN N
J & T INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Plaintiff
O （銳達國際有限公司） O
and
P ZHANG CHENG 1st Defendant P
ZHENG TINGTING 2nd Defendant
Q Q
ZHANG ANRUO 3rd Defendant
R FAN CHUN YEUNG 4th Defendant R
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
S WESTVIEW HEIGHT 5th Defendant S
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF
T
T KAM TONG BUILDING 6th Defendant
U U
V V
-2-
A A
B B
------------------------------------
C C
Before: Deputy District Judge Vincent Lung in Chambers (Open to Public)
D Date of Hearing: 2 February 2026 D
Date of Decision: 2 February 2026
E E
Date of Reasons for Decision: 10 February 2026
F F
--------------------------------------------
G REASONS FOR DECISION G
--------------------------------------------
H H
I I
1. This is a water seepage case affecting the Shop on 1/F together
with part of the staircase landing on G/F and the staircase leading from G/F J
J
to 1/F, Westview Height, No. 163 Belcher’s Street, Hong Kong (the
K
K “Affected Premises”).
L L
2. The Plaintiff (“P”) is the registered owner of the Affected
M M
Premises. It has commissioned 2 (provisional) expert reports from its
N
expert Mr. Siu to identify possible sources of the water seepage. These N
possible sources include Flats 2A, 2B and 2C (which are units above the
O O
Affected Premises) and also the neighbouring building known as Kam
P Tong Building across the movement joint. Mr. Siu’s reports are P
provisional because he was unable to have access to all the relevant parts
Q Q
and units.
R R
3. By Originating Summons issued on 13 August 2025, P
S S
essentially asks for pre-action discovery to gain access to Flats 2A, 2B, 2C
T and the relevant parts of Kam Tong Building such that its expert may carry T
out further tests to identify the exact source(s) of seepage, pursuant to
U U
V V
-3-
A A
B B
section 47D of the District Court Ordinance (Cap.336) and Order 29 r.7A
of the Rules of the District Court (Cap.336H). C
C
D
D 4. The 1st to 4th Defendants (“D1” to “D4” respectively) are the
E
owners of Flats 2A, 2B and 2C. The 5th Defendant (“D5”) is the E
incorporate owners of Westview Height (it is also possible that the
F F
common part of Westview Height is a source of seepage), and the 6 th
G
Defendant (“D6”) is the incorporate owners of Kam Tong Building. G
H H
5. All parties attended the hearing on 2 February 2026 except D3
I and D4. I am satisfied that they have been properly notified of the hearing. I
D3 had previously written to the Court indicating his stance on the
J J
Originating Summons and asking for his attendance to be excused. As to
K D4, he was in correspondence (including without prejudice K
correspondence) with P’s solicitors. I therefore proceeded with the hearing
L L
in their absence.
M M
6. Upon hearing the parties at the hearing, I made the following
N N
orders:
O O
(i) D6 shall inform P in writing within 7 days from the date
P P
of the order the identity of its expert who would take
Q part in the test(s); Q
R R
(ii) An order that P and its expert be granted access to the
S parts and units which P’s expert identified to be S
potential sources of seepage in his 2 expert reports
T T
dated 10 March 2025 and 5 August 2025 in order to
U U
V V
-4-
A A
B B
carry out necessary and appropriate test(s) to identify
the precise source(s) of seepage, and to take C
C
photographs and notes in relation thereto;
D D
E
(iii) Any expert(s) engaged by D1-D5 may attend and E
observe the test(s) conducted at Westview Height as
F F
they consider appropriate and to take photographs and
G
notes in relation thereto; G
H H
(iv) Any expert engaged by D6 may attend and observe the
I test(s) conducted at Kam Tong Building as well as the I
movement joint as he considers appropriate and to take
J J
photographs and notes in relation thereto;
K K
(v) P and its expert shall liaise with the experts engaged by
L L
D1-D6 in good time regarding the testing methodology
M and the time for the test(s); M
N N
(vi) For the avoidance of doubt, the costs of engaging the
O experts shall not form part of the costs of compliance O
with this order. Each party shall bear its/their own costs
P P
of engaging the experts;
Q Q
(vii) P shall bear all the Defendants’ reasonable costs of
R R
compliance with this order, to be taxed if not agreed;
S S
T T
U U
V V
-5-
A A
B B
(viii) Subject to paragraph (vii) above, there shall be no order
as to costs of this action between P and D3, D4, D5 and C
C
D6;
D D
E
(ix) P shall bear D1 and D2’s costs of this action on an E
indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, summarily
F F
assessed at HK$35,000;
G G
(x) There be liberty to apply.
H H
I 7. These are my brief reasons for making that order. I
J J
Access should be granted in relation to Kam Tong Building
K K
8. All of D1-D5 indicated that they are content to allow P and its
L L
expert to have access to their respective parts and units. The only party
M substantively opposing access is D6. Mr. Chan for D6 submits that Kam M
Tong Building is structurally separate from Westview Height. Further, P’s
N N
expert says that rainwater seeped through the external wall of Westview
O Height and this (Mr. Chan submits) must mean that Westview Height’s O
own external wall must have been problematic or defective for this to
P P
happen. The thrust of Mr. Chan’s submission is that it was impossible for
Q water to have seeped from Kam Tong Building to the Affected Premises, Q
and it is unnecessary for P and its expert to gain access to Kam Tong
R R
Building.
S S
9. I am unable to accept Mr. Chan’s submission. It is
T T
inconsistent with the only piece of expert opinion before me (albeit
U U
V V
-6-
A A
B provisional), being that of P’s expert who has identified Kam Tong B
Building as a possible source of seepage, and there is no material before C
C
me to conclude that P’s expert opinion is plainly and obviously incorrect.
D D
Once it is accepted that Kam Tong Building is a possible source of seepage
E
at least on a prima facie basis, I see no reason to deny access to P and its E
expert such that conclusive tests may be conducted to ascertain whether it
F F
is in fact a source of seepage. If Mr. Chan is indeed correct, after tests
G
have been conducted by P’s expert, the test result would be negative. G
H H
Engagement and attendance of the Defendants’ own expert(s)
I I
10. In the correspondences between the parties there was a debate
J J
as to whether a single joint expert should be engaged (as compared to the
K position where parties would engage their own experts), the methodology K
that should be adopted for the test(s) and who should be responsible for the
L L
costs of the expert(s).
M M
11. At the hearing I explained to the parties my provisional view
N N
that none of these issues are really engaged in these proceedings, the
O substantive relief of which is only to allow P and its expert to have access O
such that test(s) may be conducted. It is not a matter that I require expert’s
P P
assistance (whether as a single joint expert or otherwise). This is
Q fundamentally different from an action commenced for substantive relief Q
for the seepage (there may well be one in due course depending on the tests
R R
results) where the trial judge seized of the matter will have to decide how
S best he may be assisted by experts in determining the source(s) of the S
seepage and attributing liability if there are multiple sources. It is only in
T T
that action that the issue of the desirability of whether to engage a single
U U
V V
-7-
A A
B B
joint expert arises (such that, for example, there is no utility for parties to
file their expert reports in this action). C
C
D D
12. The parties expressed no strong objection on my preliminary
E
view. On that premise, it is not for the Court (still less the Defendants) to E
dictate or decide who P might decide to engage to conduct the upcoming
F F
tests. Take an extreme example: even if P decides to engage someone who
G
has no qualification and experience whatsoever to conduct the upcoming G
tests, there is still no reason for anyone to interfere; P would do so at its
H H
own peril because in future substantive proceedings the “lay opinion” (if
I adduced) may well turn out to be unreliable or incorrect, and P might have I
sued the wrong defendant. The same logic applies to the methodology
J J
proposed to be adopted by P’s expert.
K K
13. At the same time, the Court is not concerned whether the
L L
Defendants (or any of them) intend to engage their own expert(s) to
M oversee, observe or supervise the upcoming tests to be conducted by P’s M
expert. If the Defendants consider it desirable it is their own choice; my
N N
decision in these proceedings is only to allow access to be given to P and
O its nominated expert (in crude terms, someone will open the door). The O
reliability or credibility of P’s expert opinion is not an issue for these
P P
proceedings (again in crude terms, whether the person opening the door is
Q an expert or a domestic helper does not matter). Q
R R
14. It follows from these points that if any of the Defendants
S decide to engage their own expert(s) to observe the upcoming tests, it is S
purely a matter of personal choice and they would have to pay from their
T T
own pockets. I made it clear that if any of the Defendants would engage
U U
V V
-8-
A A
B B
an expert to observe the tests, those costs should not be regarded as costs
of complying with this order. C
C
D D
Costs of compliance and costs of the action
E E
15. I ordered P to bear each of the Defendants’ reasonable costs
F F
of complying with the order, to be taxed if not agreed. After all, they have
G
been compelled to give access. I further note the default position under G
Order 62 r.3(12) of the Rules of the District Court (Cap.336H).
H H
I 16. As to the costs of the action, the starting point under Order 62 I
r.3(12) is for P to pay costs of and incidental to the application “unless the
J J
Court otherwise directs”. D3 (in his letter to the Court), D5 and D6 made
K it clear that they do not ask for costs. D4 in his without prejudice letter to K
P’s solicitors also stated implicitly that he is not seeking costs against P.
L L
In these circumstances, I made no order as to costs of this action amongst
M these parties. M
N N
17. As for D1 and D2, I see no exceptional circumstances to
O depart from the starting point. Given that there was only 1 solicitors’ letter O
sent by D1 and D2 and they did not file any affirmation in opposition,
P P
having regard to the costs claimed in the Statement of Costs, I summarily
Q assessed those costs (on an indemnity basis and covering counsel’s Q
attendance) at HK$35,000.
R R
S S
( Vincent Lung )
T T
Deputy District Judge
U U
V V
-9-
A A
B Ms Sharon Ng, instructed by Kevin Ng & Co, for the plaintiff B
C Mr Jason Tang, instructed by Ma Tang & Co, for 1st and 2nd defendants C
D The 3rd and 4th defendants were not represented and did not appear D
E
Mr Chiu Wai Tung of Chen & Lee Law Office, for 5th defendant E
Mr Chan Siu Chung of S.C. Chan & Co, for 6th defendant
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V