樓上漏水損害賠償評估？申索得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEE WAI CHUEN 及 LEE SIU YIN HEDY 訴 CHEUNG CHOR KEUNG 及 SHUK OI KWAN - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：梁紹基法官 (His Hon Judge Leung) - 判決日期：2011年1月7日 ### 案情摘要 原告人李惠泉（單位5K業主）及其妹李肖燕（單位5K住客）向被告人張楚強及束愛群（單位6K業主）追討因樓上單位漏水造成的損失。漏水問題始於2005年底至2006年初，當時被告人單位進行大規模裝修，並將單位分間成三個獨立單位。儘管屋宇署（BD）發出命令要求拆除違規建築工程，被告人曾一度遵守，但隨後又重複違規行為。漏水導致原告人單位天花剝落、發霉、電器受損，並對李肖燕的健康造成影響。本案為損害賠償評估（assessment of damages）程序。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於評估因樓上單位漏水對樓下單位造成的損害賠償金額。爭議點包括維修費用（例如天花、牆壁、燈具、餐桌）、臨時住宿費用、醫療費用、拆除違規簷篷的費用，以及因滋擾（nuisance）、困擾和不便而導致的一般損害賠償（general damages）。被告方質疑部分維修費用的合理性及因果關係，特別是原告人尚未實際支付的維修費用是否可獲賠償。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定，一旦侵權行為（tortious act）導致財產實質損害，被告人賠償責任即告產生。即使原告人尚未進行維修，只要沒有證據顯示其無意或不會進行維修，則不應阻止其索償維修費用。法官根據專家報告和證據，逐項審視各項索償的合理性及因果關係。對於滋擾造成的一般損害賠償，法官考慮了漏水的持續時間、嚴重性、被告人的不負責任行為，以及對原告人造成的精神困擾，並參考了過往案例進行評估。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用具約束力的案例來確立法律原則，但法官在評估一般損害賠償時參考了多宗區域法院案例，包括 Lau Ting Hang & Anor v Leung Chi Wing, DCCJ 6539/2005；John So v Lam Hon Man [1993] 2 HKC 356；Chan Fei Lung v Mansion Products Limited [1990] HKC 504；Leung Yung Chun v Chan Wing Sang [2000] 1 HKLRD 456；Ngan Ping Chi & Anor v Lam Chi Hao Louis & Anor, DCCJ 462/2003；Lau Lai Tan Wah & Anor v Cheng Mei Fong & Anor, DCCJ 4976/2004；Chung Che Sum v Dong Sai Ming Fernando, DCCJ 21504/2001；Wong Hon Yung & Anor v Jolly Birds, DCCJ 5341/2006；以及 Tse Chit Sang & Anor v Ho Mei Ling & Anor, DCCJ 2404/2005。 ### 裁決與命令 法官裁定原告人勝訴，判給總計港幣206,318元的損害賠償。此金額包括單位維修及附帶費用、拆除違規簷篷費用、李肖燕的醫療費用、臨時住宿費用、照片及紅外線檢查費用，以及因滋擾、困擾和不便而導致的港幣50,000元一般損害賠償。被告人須支付判決金額及利息，並承擔原告人的訟費，包括抗辯反申索及評估程序所產生的費用。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調，即使損害賠償尚未實際發生，只要侵權行為已造成實質損害，受害人仍可索償維修費用。法官亦指出，在評估滋擾造成的一般損害賠償時，會考慮侵權人的行為態度，例如本案中被告人重複違規建築工程的行為，加劇了原告人的困擾。此外，法官重申「受害者照單全收」（take your victim as she is）原則，即侵權人須對受害人因其行為而加劇的脆弱性負責。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: LEE WAI CHUEN and LEE SIU YIN HEDY v CHEUNG CHOR KEUNG and SHUK OI KWAN - Court: District Court - Judge: His Hon Judge Leung - Date of Judgment: 7 January 2011 ### Factual Background The plaintiffs, Lee Wai Chuen (owner of Flat 5K) and his sister Lee Siu Yin Hedy (occupant of Flat 5K), claimed against the defendants, Cheung Chor Keung and Shuk Oi Kwan (owners of Flat 6K), for losses due to water leakage from the upstairs flat. The leakage began in late 2005/early 2006 during extensive renovation of the defendants' flat, which was subdivided into three self-contained units. Despite a Buildings Department (BD) order to remove unauthorized building works, the defendants, after initial compliance, repeated the unauthorized alterations. The leakage caused peeling paint, mould, and damage to electrical fittings in the plaintiffs' flat, and affected Hedy Lee's health. This case was an assessment of damages. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues in dispute concerned the assessment of damages for water leakage from an upstairs flat to a downstairs flat. Points of contention included the cost of repairs (e.g., ceiling, walls, lightings, dining table), alternative accommodation, medical expenses, cost of demolishing an unauthorized canopy, and general damages for nuisance, distress, discomfort, and inconvenience. The defendants challenged the reasonableness and causation of certain repair costs, particularly whether costs not yet incurred by the plaintiffs were recoverable. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge ruled that upon proof of a tortious act causing physical damage to property, the defendant's liability to compensate the plaintiff accrues. The fact that necessary repairs have not yet been carried out is no bar to a claim for their cost, unless there is evidence that the plaintiff never intends to or will not carry out the repair. The judge examined the reasonableness and causation of each claim item based on expert reports and evidence. For general damages for nuisance, the judge considered the duration and severity of the leakage, the defendants' irresponsible conduct, and the mental distress caused to the plaintiff, referencing comparable cases for assessment. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited for establishing legal principles. However, in assessing general damages, the judge referred to several District Court cases including Lau Ting Hang & Anor v Leung Chi Wing, DCCJ 6539/2005; John So v Lam Hon Man [1993] 2 HKC 356; Chan Fei Lung v Mansion Products Limited [1990] HKC 504; Leung Yung Chun v Chan Wing Sang [2000] 1 HKLRD 456; Ngan Ping Chi & Anor v Lam Chi Hao Louis & Anor, DCCJ 462/2003; Lau Lai Tan Wah & Anor v Cheng Mei Fong & Anor, DCCJ 4976/2004; Chung Che Sum v Dong Sai Ming Fernando, DCCJ 21504/2001; Wong Hon Yung & Anor v Jolly Birds, DCCJ 5341/2006; and Tse Chit Sang & Anor v Ho Mei Ling & Anor, DCCJ 2404/2005. ### Decision & Orders The judge found in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding total damages of HK$206,318. This sum included costs for flat repairs and incidental expenses, demolition of the unauthorized canopy, Hedy Lee's medical expenses, alternative accommodation costs, photography and infra-red examination costs, and HK$50,000 in general damages for nuisance, distress, and inconvenience. The defendants were ordered to pay the judgment sum with interest and the plaintiffs' costs of the action, including those for defending the counterclaim and the assessment proceedings. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that even if damages have not yet been physically incurred, a victim can claim for repair costs once a tortious act causes actual property damage. The judge also noted that in assessing general damages for nuisance, the tortfeasor's conduct, such as repeated unauthorized building works, can exacerbate the victim's distress. Furthermore, the "take your victim as she is" principle was reaffirmed, holding tortfeasors responsible for the victim's heightened vulnerability due to their actions. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.