CHENG SUM NING AND ANOTHER 訴 PEAK UNION DEVELOPMENT LTD

LDBM 151/2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第151號

----------------------

----------------------

_______________

判 案 書

_______________

1. 2004年3月18日，本席裁決答辯人須賠償兩名申請人（“申請人”）由於Mt. Parker Lodge, Block B, 29/F, Flat 1（"B2901室"）的地台滲漏而導致位於B2901室之下的28/F., Flat 1（“B2801室”）受影響而遭受的損失。

2． 申請人要求答辯人賠償的損失是列載於專業評量公証行（“公証行”）的報告（証物A26）之內。賠償的項目共有5項。

3． 第(1)項是B2801室的維修費。公証行的報告在這方面有以下的內容 ：

“1. 全屋天花鏟底，批灰，油乳膠漆

Assessment
Liv. Room ceiling	150 s.f.
Corridor ceiling	40 s.f.
M. bed room ceiling	72 s.f.
Bath room ceiling	36 s.f.
Ceiling of Kitchen	50 s.f.
	348 s.f.

Allowing cost of scraping, filling, sanding and emulsion paint

348 s.f. x @$15 = HK$5,220.00

Say:		HK$5,500.00
		==========

2. 全廳房牆身鏟底，批灰，黏牆紙

To replace wall paper covering on the water affected walls:-
Wall of liv. Room.	350 s.f.
Wall of corridor.	150 s.f.
Wall of M. Bed room	260 s.f.
Total area approx.:	760 s.f.

Allow cost of scraping, filling and sanding

760 x @$8 =		$6,080.00
wall paper 760 x @$7 =		$5,320.00
Sub-total:		$11,400.00
Say :	HK$11,500.00
	===========

3. 洛室重做7'-0"電線暗喉HK$2,000.00

Assessment

The amount HK$2,000 charged for the replacement of concealed conduits and wiring for the ceiling light and exhaust fan of the bath room is found to be fair and reasonable.

4. 浴室更換膠板吊櫃

60"L x16" D x 20" HK

$3,500.00

Assessment

The amount of HK$3,500 charged for the supply and installation of the wall hung cabinet (wooden frame with laminate) is found to be fair and reasonable.

5. 主人房更換膠板衣櫃

60"L x 25" D x 98"H HK

$7,000.00

Assessment

The amount of HK$7,000 charged for the supply and installation of the wall hung cabinet (wooden frame with laminate) is found to be fair and reasonable”

3.1 答辯人的証人翁清林先生指牆紙的狀況不是由於漏水所引 致。他指出証物A29內照片A10、A12及A17顯示牆紙出現“披口”的情況不是由漏水所導致的。

3.2 他又說，証物A29內的照片A9、A14、A19、A21、A23、A26、A27及A29顯示的天花表面剝落的情況，這是由於天花本身潮濕所引致 的。B2801室的天花潮濕，是因為B2901室的浴室滲水，引致B2801室受損。公証行於2002年5月10日作出一份報告。對於滲漏之事，它有以下的結論 ：-

"7. Cause and Origin of Water Leakage

Based on our surveying, we are in the position to advise you the followings:-

7.1	That the water origin is presently at the bath room of 29/F.1 seeping through its floor slab to drip out at the ceiling slab of the bath room of 28/F.1.
7.2	Water flowed into the bath room of 28/F.1 spread to various parts of its premises including master bed room, corridor, living room and kitchen.
7.3	The cause is attributable to the water proof membrane in the floor slab of the bath room of 29/F.1 which has been wear, tear and dilapidated rendering passage of water and moisture through its floor slab of 29/F.1 to enter and drip out at ceiling slab of the bath room of 28/F.1 premises."

本席已在2004年3月18日的判案書中接納這部份的報告內容。

3.3 由B2901室滲下至B2801室的水滲透到主人房、走廊、客廳及廚房的天花。很自然地水份亦會滲落至牆身之處，因此主人房、走廊及客廳的牆紙亦會受到該些水份的影響，所以上述天花剝落的情況以及牆紙的狀況都是受到從B2901室滲下的水而產生的。

3.4 翁清林指出証物A29的A4（浴室）、A24及A25（主人房）圖片顯示木櫃發霉的情況，木櫃的最底部份發黑，以及其表面起點，這是因為這些木櫃已有12年之久，而它們所在的地方有問題。如果浴室的木櫃是受了浴室的水氣而發霉的話，那就難以解釋為何在沒有水氣的主人房的木櫃亦會發霉。証物A29的A3A照片顯示浴室的木櫃的位置。它是緊貼在天花之下。在木櫃之外的天花是一大片剝落的地方（照片A1、A3A及 A5）。部份剝落之處連接木櫃。毫無疑問，滲水導致天花剝落，而剝落之處連接木櫃，因此木櫃亦受滲水影響而引致發霉。

3.5 主人房的木櫃緊貼天花。滲水導致部份天花剝落，有些剝落的部份很接近木櫃，（參看証物A29之A22、A23及A26照片），因此木櫃亦是因滲水而發霉的。

3.6 答辯人不同意申請人所提議的有關工序的價錢。翁清林說對鏟灰、防潮剝落、批灰、髹漆的工作，他祇收每方平呎8元，而做牆紙的工序是每平方呎7元。他又呈遞報紙廣告（証物R4、R5及R6）作為証物。但在考慮該些廣告的內容後，本席裁定該些廣告對本案並無幫助。價錢是否合理要視乎情形而定，例如工程面積的大小、工程的質素以及其他因素。一間名叫“毅誠公司”的公司就“全屋天花鏟底，批灰，油乳膠漆”的工程向申請人提議收取10,000元的工價，而公正行則計算該工價為5,220元。本席裁定公証行所述有關工序的價錢是合理的價錢。

3.7 本席不知道浴室的“exhaust fan”因何要更換，亦不知道這與滲水有何關連，因此就第一項的第3段，本席只批准申請人可得1,000元的損 失。

4. 第(2)、(3)、(4)項的損失賠償是 ：(2) Cost for the removal and temporary storage of goods and chattels，(3) Hotel Accommodation及(4) Water damage to clothings。就該3項而言，公正行的報告有以下的內容 ：

"(2) Cost for the removal and temporary storage of goods and chattels. Amount of claim HK$8,400.00

There are goods and chattels in the premises including sofa set, dining table, chairs, movable cabinets, bed which are required move to a warehouse for a temporary storage.

The claim appears fair and reasonable: -

(1) Cost of the transportation
@$3,300 x 2 times		HK$6,600.00
(2) Storage charge, one month:		HK$1,800.00
Sub-total :		HK$8,400.00
		==========

(3) Hotel Accommodation. Amount of Claim HK$12,480.00

We are of an opinion that 14 days for the reinstatement works is adequate and the room charge at HK$780 (3 persons) is reasonable and the assessment of losses:-

14 days x @HK$780 =		HK$10,920.00
		===========

(4) Water damage to clothings. Amount of claim HK$1,000.00

There are some 20 clothes and socks stained by the downpour and we have evaluated the costs which are amounted to approximately HK$900.00 as such we would recommend the settlement of

		HK$900.00"
		=========

4.1 本席裁定上述第(3)及第(4)項賠償是合理的賠償，因此答辯人須支付該兩項賠償的款項。就第(2)項的storage charge而言，因維修只需時14天，因此本席裁定storage charge只需17天，因此賠償是1,020元，但答辯人須賠償6,600元的運輸費。

5． 就第(5)項的賠償，公正行的報告有以下的內容 ：-

"(5) Nuisance. Amount of claim HK$32,535.00

There was water leaking from the ceiling of the premises rendering soakage to the ceiling slab resulting occasionally stripping and dropping of plaster and paint work from the ceiling affecting the use of the bath room, corridor, living room, master bed room and kitchen which would amount to nuisance.

The Plaintiff intends to claim a sum of HK$15 per day being the cleaning fee for the premises arising water leakage from the Defendant's premises.

The Plaintiff claims for the nuisance @$15 per day x 365 day = HK$5,475.00 / year appears to be reasonable.

According to High Court Case "So John", the Plaintiff was granted a sum of HK$10,000 being the damages on nuisance for a period of about 2 years time which is 13.70 per day.

Based on this scale, we would recommend the indemnity on nuisance as follows:-

2,169 days (5/7/1997 - 13/6/2003) x @$13.70 =

HK$29,715.00"

5.1 申請人是於2002年6月11日，向土地審裁處提出本案的申請的。在2001年12月6日，申請人在小額錢債審裁處提出針對答辯人的申索，這是有關B2801室的浴室天花漏水之事。在申索書中，申請人指稱 ：“自1997年中至今被告人之單位康景花園B2901室多次滲/漏水，使申索人之單位康景花園B2801室，天花板，浴室電器損壞，拖延數年，使本家庭生活，精神受到滋擾。期間多次電話要求徹底維修及賠償未有受理。於2001年8月13日發出信件要求賠償不受理。”2002年1月24日，小額錢債審裁處判決申請人的申索得直，因此申請人所受的困擾，應由2002年1月24日後開始計算，而不應由1997年7月5日起計。

5.2 2003年8月9日答辯人已完成對B2901室的地台維修，地台再沒有滲水。由2002年1月25日起計至2003年8月9日，期間約為181/2月。在這期間答辯人的租客曾搬離B2901室，因而B2901室沒有滴水的情況，所以B2801室並不是每一天都有滴水的情況發生。本席認為5,000元是合理的賠償，因此本席裁定答辯人須支付申請人5,000元作為滋擾的賠償費。

6． 本席裁定答辯人須支付申請人52,560元（5,220元 + 11,400元 + 1,000元 + 3,500元 + 7,000元 + 7,620元 + 10,920元 + 900元 + 5,000元）作為賠償費用。該筆款項須在21天內支付。

第一申請人：親自應訊，無律師代表。

第二申請人：由第一申請人代表，無律師代表。

答辯人：由江鳳儀女士代表，無律師代表。

LDBM 151/2002

香港特別行政區

土地審裁處

建築物管理申請編號2002年第151號

主審法官: 周兆熊法官

_______________

判 案 書

_______________

1. 兩名申請人（“申請人”）是 Flat 1, 28/F, Block B, MT. Parker Lodge, 10 Hong Pak Path, Quarry Bay, Hong Kong（“處所”）的業主，而答辯人是Mt. Parker Lodge, Block B, 29/F, Flat 1的業主。

2. 2002年6月11日，申請人向土地審裁處提出以下的申 請 ：

"Action to stop the leakage that has been affecting the property of the Applicants, situated at Flat 1, 28/F., Block B, Mt. Parker Lodge, 10 Hong Pak Path, Quarry Bay, H.K."

3. 1996年7月，申請人開始發現處所的浴室天花漏水。2001年12月6日，申請人在小額錢債審裁處提出針對答辯人的申索，在申索書中，申請人指稱“自1997年中至今被告人之單位康景花園B2901室多次滲/漏水，使申索人之單位康景花園B2801室，天花板，浴室電器損壞，拖延數年，使本家庭生活，精神受到滋擾。期間多次電話要求徹底維修及賠償未有受理。於2001年8月13日發出信件要求賠償不受理。”2002年1月24日，小額錢債審裁處在被告人沒有出庭應訊的情況下，判決申請人勝訴。

4. 2002年2月7日，申請人聘用專業評量公証行調查處所漏水的原因。2002年5月10日，公証行作出一份測量報告，該報告有以下的部 份：

"5. Survey Findings

We took inspection of 28/F. 1 premises on 7th February 2002, 28th March, 2002 and 30th April, 2002 when we observed the condition of water leakage at the ceiling slab of the said premises as follows:-

5.1 Bath Room, 28/F, 1 (photo. P.3-P.6, P.29-P.34, P.43-P.46)

- There is a damp patch about 5' x 4' at the ceiling slab of the bath room

- There is a heavy water and rust-stained mark at the ceiling light point of the ceiling slab.

- There is occasionally water dripping from the ceiling light point and the ceiling slab around the ceiling light point.

- The plaster of the ceiling slab blistered and paint work peeled.

- By the moisture tester, we found the ceiling slab of Bath room to be 100% dampness (Photo. P.4, P.5)

5.2 Master Bed Room, 28/F, 1 (Photo. P.13-P.15, P.35, P.36, P.48)

- We found water marks at the ceiling near to the side of the bath room.

- By the moisture tester, we found that the ceiling slab had been affected by water spreading from the ceiling slab of the bath room of the premises.

5.3 Corridor, 28/F, 1 (Photo. P.9, P.37, P.49)

- There are slight water marks at the ceiling slab of the corridor of the premises (there had been prominent water marks but covered by new coats of paint).

- By the moisture tester, we found it to be 50%-70% dampness.

- The wall paper on wall started peeling (photo. P.18)

5.4 Living Room, 28/F, 1 (Photo. P.10-P.12, P.38, P.39, P.50)

- There are some water marks at the ceiling slab (other water marks had been covered by coats of paint).

- The wall paper on walls alongside the joint between the walls of Bath Room and the ceiling has peeled.

- By the moisture tester, we found that the ceiling slab to be 50% dampness.

5.5 Kitchen, 28/F, 1 (photo. P.19-P.21, P.41, P.42, P.51)

- there are water marks at the ceiling slab of the kitchen (some water marks had been covered by paint work).

- By the moisture tester, we found that the ceiling slab of kitchen to be 50%-80% dampness.

....................................

6. Investigation into the Water Leakage Source

In order to confirm the origin and cause of water leakage, we probed the moisture at the ceiling slab of 28/F. 1 three times on 7.2.2002, 28.3.2002, 30.4.2002 and attained the records as follows:-

Location	1st survey 7.2.2002	2nd survey 28.3.2002	3rd survey 30.4.2002	Result of the Test.
Bath Room 28/F.1	100%	100%	100%	Water keeps leaking from the bath room of 29/F.1 through its floor slab into 28/F.1 premises
M. Bed Room, 29/F.1	60%	70%	60%	Slightly affected by water seepage with water source from the bath room of 29/F. 1 through its floor slab into 28/F.1 premises
Corridor, 28/F.1	---	50%	70%	Slightly affected by water seepage with water source from the bath room of 29/F. 1 through its floor slab into 28/F.1 premises
Living Room, 28/F.1	---	50%	50%	Previously water affected but now become gradually dry out.
Kitchen, 28/F.1	50%	60%-80%	50%	Previously water affected but now become gradually dry out.
The ceiling slab of the bath room of 30/F.1	---	60% normal (photo. P.26)	---	No water leakage from the bath room of 30/F.1 premises or its above.
The water base or floor of the bath room of 30/F.1	---	20%-30% normal (photo. P.27-P.28)	---	No water leakage from the bath room of 30/F.1 premises or its above.
External wall of the bath room of 29/F.1		Water marks (photo.P.23)		We found water marks at the external wall of 29/F.1 but no similar marks found at the external wall of other flats which evidences that water leakage origin is at the bath room of 29/F.1 premises caused flowing into 28/F.1 premises and the external wall.

7. Cause and Origin of Water Leakage

Based on our surveying, we are in the position to advise you the followings:-

7.1 That the water origin is presently at the bath room of 29/F.1 seeping through its floor slab to drip out at the ceiling slab of the bath room of 28/F.1.

7.2 Water flowed into the bath room of 28/F.1 spread to various parts of its premises including master bed room, corridor, living room and kitchen.

7.3 The cause is attributable to the water proof membrane in the floor slab of the bath room of 29/F.1 which has been wear, tear and dilapidated rendering passage of water and moisture through its floor slab of 29/F.1 to enter and drip out at ceiling slab of the bath room of 28/F.1 premises."

本席接納上述的報告內容。

5. 該報告的作者黃順泰（Stewart Wong）指出2901室的浴室的地面以下約1 1/2 吋有一層2釐米厚的防水層。防水層一般的壽命約為15年，他說浴室離開主人房大約8呎，如外牆滲水，滲水只會影響離牆1呎之內的地方，而不會對8呎至10呎以外的地方有所影響。本席接納他的証供。

6. 2003年6月至8月9日之間，答辯人聘請翁清林先生對2901室浴室的地台以及2901室的其他地方進行維修。他指出2901室浴室的地台（大約4呎 x 4呎）漏水，原因是地台內的水喉的長度不夠，在水喉終端的部份與去水位之間有虛位，而在大廈建造時該部份沒有塗上防漏英泥。他以防水英泥把有缺漏的地方修補，經測試後，他發覺地台再沒有滲水的情況。

7. 在答辯人把地台修補後，申請人對處所的天花進行測試，天花衹有輕微的濕度，及很細小的水珠。翁清林指出在2801室的外牆有通往天台的污水喉，在喉管進入2801室入牆的地方（在2801室抽氣扇頂部）沒有接駁好，這構成該處變成滲水的地方。

8. 翁清林的証供指出2901室處所的地台漏水，這與專業評量公証行報告指2901室的浴室地台漏水是一致的。大廈公契第IV部份第8及第11條是適用於本案的條文。該兩條的條文後列如下 ：

"8. Each Owner shall be responsible to the other Owners for the time being for the acts and omissions of all persons occupying with his consent expressed or implied any part or parts of the Estate owned by him and shall pay all costs, charges and expenses incurred in repairing or making good any loss or damage caused by the act, neglect or default of any such person. In the case of loss or damage for which the manager is responsible to make good or repair, such costs, charges and expenses shall be recoverable by the manager as hereinafter provided and in the case of loss or damage suffered by other Owners or occupiers of any part of the Estate for which the manager is not responsible to repair or make good, such costs, charges and expenses together with all other damages recoverable by law shall be recoverable by the person or persons sustaining the loss or damage.

.......................................

11. Each Owner shall maintain in good repair and condition to the satisfaction of the manager and in such a manner so as to avoid any loss, damage, nuisance or annoyance to the Owners or occupiers of any other part or parts of the Estate that part of the Estate in respect of which he is entitled to exclusive possession."

9. 申請人在証物A6詳細列出事發經過，本席接受這書面証供。在2002年2月7日，第一申請人多次致電答辯人的董事江鳳儀女士要求答辯人進行維修及賠償，但它沒有作出回應。申請人遂於2002年6月11日入稟土地審裁處。

10. 本席裁定答辯人違反大廈公契第IV部份第8及第11條的規定，它有責任對2901室浴室的地台進行維修，以免位於其下的2801室遭受2901室地台滲水而引致的損失。答辯人在申請人提出本案的申請後才對地台進行維修，因此它須賠償申請人因該地台滲漏而導致產生的損失。答辯人現已完成其責任，故此本席頒令答辯人無須維修該地台。

第一申請人：親自應訊，無律師代表。

第二申請人：由第一申請人代表，無律師代表。

答辯人：由江鳳儀女士代表，無律師代表。