Madam Liu died and it was found that the 15 lbs. triangular piece of concrete came from Kwok Wing House and fell from Flat A on the 11th floor and it formed the corner of a concrete canopy which is projecting out from over the enclosed balcony of the flat, before it had been detached and fallen down into the street ("Case Alert: Case 2 (FACV4/2007)," 2008. and "Leung Tsang Hung and Lee Wai Yu v. Incorporated Owners of Kwok Wing House FACV4/2007," 2007).
The tenant, as well as the incorporated owners, was sued in negligence and public nuisance. And they were held liable for the case. The First Instance Judge, as well as the Court of Appeal, had dismissed the claim against the Incorporated Owners ("Case Alert: Case 2 (FACV4/2007)," 2008).
The Court of Final Appeal handed down the decision on the case on October 26, 2007, and the case has clearly laid down the responsibilities as well as liabilities of the incorporated owners in relation to common areas and illegal structures of the building. They were also held responsible for the Death of Madam Liu.
In August 1999, Madam Liu was plying her trade as a hawker in Tung Choi Street, when she met was struck by a falling piece of concrete coming from the adjacent building, known as Kwok Wing House and as a consequence, she died. That piece of concrete fell from Flat A on the 11th floor of the said building, which formed a corner of a concrete canopy projecting out from the enclosed balcony of the flat. Tenant of the flat and incorporated owners was sued in negligence and public nuisance. The tenant and owners of the flat were held liable, however, the first Instance Judge and Court of Appeal had dismissed the claim against the Incorporated Owners so, the plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Final Appeal ("Case Alert: Case 2 (FACV4/2007).&nbsp. There was a canopy protruding from the outer wall of the premises on top of the building to which someone added the extended canopy and converted the open balcony beneath as part of the covered space inside the premises. From that extended canopy, the fatal concrete fragment fell. No evidence found when was the extended canopy erected and who was responsible for it and it could have been erected in 1964, soon after occupation permit was issued and before the sale of the said premise to its first owner. Investigation report of Building Authorities implies that the extended canopy was cast against the approved canopy with roughened joint, however, connecting steel reinforcement and spanned between the&nbsp.extended side walls of the balcony is absent and beyond the front of the premises, it protruded a foot or two. The extended canopy, as well as the extended side walls, were unauthorized structures and illegal and it was not designed in accordance with Building Construction Regulations for the reason that inside the concrete slab, there were no longitudinal steel reinforcement bars.

You may also like

Publication Bans

A public bank can be issued if it is necessary

Whether Royal Prerogative Powers Are Unnecessary

There is near consensus amongst the members of Parliament and

Observation Riding Public Transportation

And whether or not they are rich or poor people