F. Inspection powers

F. Inspection powers

Inspection powers in water seepage disputes arise from a combination of statutory powers and court orders. Access to a private unit for investigation is often the most contentious hurdle in resolving these cases. 

Affected owner’s lack of general right to enter 

The owner of the affected flat does not have a general legal right to enter a suspected source unit for the purpose of inspection. 

Owners are encouraged to first approach their neighbours or the property management company to arrange a voluntary joint inspection. 

Management committee’s statutory powers 

Under section 40 of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344), the management committee of the Incorporated Owners has statutory powers to enter a flat in appropriate circumstances for building management and maintenance purposes. 

A member of the management committee, or a person authorised by the management committee, may enter a flat at any reasonable time after giving reasonable notice. The purpose of the entry must be connected with matters such as inspecting, repairing or maintaining the common parts of the building, or dealing with any property inside the flat which may adversely affect the common parts or other owners. The power may also be used where entry is needed to abate a hazard or nuisance affecting the building or other occupiers. 

If the occupier refuses to allow entry, the management committee or the authorised person cannot simply force entry on their own. They may apply to a magistrate for a warrant. If the magistrate is satisfied that entry is necessary, the magistrate may issue a warrant authorising entry into the flat. Where such a warrant is granted, the person authorised may break into the flat, but this must be done in the presence of a police officer. 

Joint Office’s access powers 

The Joint Office for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints (“Joint Office”) has the authority to investigate seepage that poses a public health nuisance under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132). 

If the Joint Office’s staff are denied entry to a suspected source unit, they issue a Notice of Intended Entry. Failure to comply with this notice without a reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to $5,000. 

For more information, please refer to “Powers of entry and compulsory cooperation” and “Enforcement penalties after the 2025 amendment”. 

Court-ordered inspection in civil litigation 

If a water seepage dispute proceeds to civil litigation, a party may apply to the court for an order authorising entry into, and inspection of, the relevant premises. The court has power to give directions to facilitate investigation of the source and cause of the seepage, including directions for access, inspection, testing and expert examination. 

In the Court of First Instance, the relevant powers arise under section 44 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4) and Order 29, rule 7A of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A). In the District Court, the corresponding powers arise under section 47D of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) and Order 29, rule 7A of the Rules of the District Court (Cap. 336H). 

In many cases, the court may direct the parties to jointly appoint an expert, or to appoint their own experts, to inspect the relevant premises. This may include site inspections of both the affected flat and the flat suspected to be the source of the seepage. The purpose of such inspections is to assist the court in identifying the cause of the seepage and tracing the path of water penetration. 

A defendant is generally not required to carry out investigations merely to prove that his premises are not the source of the seepage. However, this does not give the defendant an absolute entitlement to deny the plaintiff a fair opportunity to establish his case by reasonable inspection. 

Conversely, if the plaintiff acts unreasonably by refusing to cooperate with proposed joint inspections, or by obstructing access without good reason, the court may take that conduct into account. Such refusal may be relevant when the court considers whether to grant equitable relief, such as a permanent injunction requiring the party to stop the seepage or allow necessary works to be carried out.