香港高等法院原訟法庭是香港最高級的原訟法院,對民事和刑事案件均有無限的司法管轄權。由於香港法律制度實施普通法,因此高等法院案例對將來的同類案件及下級法院 (區域法院、小額錢債審裁處) 都具有極為重要的參考價值。法庭案例的判案書可在「香港司法機構」網站的「法律參考資料系統」供市民網上免費查核。處理樓宇滲水問題的業主可參考香港高等法院原訟法庭的案件編號 HCA 1010 / 2019 判案書 (法庭結果: 申請人勝訴。法庭發出強制維修命令、損害賠償命令及訟費命令)。現節錄判案書部份內容以供參考:- This is an action brought by the owner of one flat against the owner of the flat immediately above, complaining of water seepage. The flats in question are both Flat D, on 35/F and 36/F respectively, in one of the towers of a development on Hoi Fai Road, Kowloon. I shall refer to them as “35D” and “36D” respectively. (Clause 1)- 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)- The plaintiff is entitled to damages for the loss suffered as a result and/or indemnity of the expenses of necessary repairs, which I assess below. In the circumstances of this case I also grant an injunction requiring the defendant to cause all necessary works to be carried out for the purpose of rectifying and making good the floor of 36D in order to prevent any further water seepage to 35D. Such works should be effected and completed within 4 months. There will be liberty to apply in relation to matters ancillary to the injunction. (Clause 53)樓宇滲水首要及最重要工作是必須先查找出樓宇滲水成因及源頭。政府滲水辨 (食物環境衛生署及屋宇署聯合辦事處) 及香港公正行是專門查找樓宇滲水成因及源頭的兩大正式機構。香港公正行總工程師及高級工程師均為超過25年資歷的資深香港政府註冊 (持牌) 工程師。香港政府註冊工程師是根據香港法例第409章《工程師註冊條例》註冊的香港法定專業資格。總工程師亦為香港政府屋宇署註冊一般建築承建商、註冊專門承建商、註冊小型工程承建商的獲授權簽署人及法庭專家證人,專家資歷及經驗豐富。香港公正行: 樓宇滲水檢驗領導權威#漏水 #滲水 #樓宇漏水 #樓宇滲水 #樓宇滲漏 #驗樓 #驗樓師 #天花剝落 #天花裂紋 #天花滴水 #天花漏水 #天花滲水 #天花滲漏 #外牆漏水 #外牆滲水 #外牆滲漏 #樓上漏水 #樓上滲水 #樓上滲漏 #漏水賠償 #滲水賠償 #滲漏賠償 #賠償評估 #損害評估 #聯合辦事處 #滲水辦 #屋宇署 #香港公正行 #明哥 #賴達明