Liu Weiguang v. Li Keng Ko and Another

DCPI 2723/2018

[2019] HKDC 1745

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 2723 OF 2018

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

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

Before: Her Honour Judge Phoebe Man in Court

Date of Hearing: 6-7 November 2019 and 4 December 2019

Date of Judgment: 14 January 2020

Date of Corrigendum: 31 August 2020

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

CORRIGENDUM

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

In accordance with the Decision dated 29 May 2020, please note the following corrigendum in the Judgment dated 14 January 2020:-

Paragraph 72 of the Judgment

1.  Paragraph 72 of the Judgment should be amended to read as follows, with underlining to show the amendments made:

“Parties also differ as to whether the CPI index or the Statistical Tables of Average Daily Wages of Workers Engaged in Public Sector Construction Projects as Reported by Main Contractor (the “Tables”) should be adopted for measuring the increase in salary as a result of inflation.  I agree with the plaintiff’s submission that the Tables are more appropriate in measuring the increase in salary than the CPI which reflects consumer price changes on households.  The Tables show an increase of about 8.5% between September 2015 (HK$907.4) and January 2020 (HK$985.1).

Paragraph 73 of the Judgment

2.  Paragraph 73 of the Judgment should be amended to read as follows, with underlining to show the amendments made:

“Thus, the plaintiff’s pre-trial loss of earnings & MPF from 15 September 2015 to 14 January 2020 are calculated as follows:

The plaintiff’s notional earnings from 15 September 2015 to 14 January 2020

(1) The plaintiff’s pre-accident monthly salary was HK$19,345 (§71 of the Judgment).

(2) The average daily wages of general labourers in September 2015 was HK$907.40. The average daily wages of general labourers in January 2020 was HK$985.10. The percentage increase is (HK$985.10 – HK$907.40)/HK$907.40 x 100% = 8.5%.

(3) The plaintiff’s notional monthly earnings as at January 2020 is HK$19,345 x (1+8.56%) = HK$21,000.93

(4) The plaintiff’s notional earnings for the entire pre-judgment period (15 September 2015 to 14 January 2020, a total of 52 months) are: (HK$19,345 + HK$21,000.93)/2 x 1.05 x 52 months = HK$1,101,443.94.

The plaintiff’s expected pre-trial earnings for the period from 16 October 2016 to 14 January 2020

(1) Based on Table 8 of the Quarterly Report of Wage and Payroll Statistics (December 2016), the average monthly salary of a male security guard was HK$12,275.00.

(2) Based on Table 8 of the Quarterly Report of Wage and Payroll Statistics (December 2019), the average monthly salary of a male security guard was HK$13,844.00.

(3) The average salary of a male security guard between the period 16 October 2016 to 14 January 2020 is (HK$12,275 + HK$13,844) /2 = HK$13,095.50.

(4) The expected pre-trial earnings as a security guard is thus: HK$13,095.50 x 1.05 x (38) = HK$533,415.28

Pre-Trial Loss of earnings

The plaintiff’s pre- trial loss of earnings is thus the plaintiff’s notional earnings from 15 September 2015 to 14 January 2020 minus what he could have earned as a security guard from 16 October 2016 to 14 January 2020, i.e. HK$1,101,443.94 – HK$533,415.28 = HK$568,028.66.”

Paragraph 75 of the Judgment

3.  Paragraph 75 of the Judgment should thus be amended to read as follows, with underlining to show the amendments made:

“The plaintiff worked as a security guard from March 2019 to 1 October 2019 and his average monthly income was HK$8,742.93. I do not agree this figure should be adopted as the plaintiff’s monthly earnings as a security guard. Based on Table 8 of the Quarterly Report of Wage and Payroll Statistics (December 2019), the average monthly salary of a male security guard was HK$13,844.00. I already found the plaintiff to be physically fit for a job as a security guard. I also found that the plaintiff would be able to resume working as a security guard with his residual psychiatric symptoms. No explanation was given on why the plaintiff would fail to achieve the average income of a security guard. I would therefore adopt HK$13,844 as the figure of what the plaintiff should be able to earn from the date of trial onwards.”

Paragraph 77 of the Judgment

4.  Paragraph 77 of the Judgment should be amended to read as follows, with underlining to show the amendments made:

“Consequently, the plaintiff’s post-trial loss of income is:

(HK$21,000.93 – HK$13,844) x 12 months x 8.4 x 1.05 = HK$757,489.47.

Paragraph 81 of the Judgment

5.  The Summary under paragraph 81 should be consequentially amended to read as follows, with underlining to show the amendments made:

“Summary
	HK$
PSLA	250,000.00
Pre-trial loss of earnings	568,028.66
Future loss of earnings	757,489.47
Loss of earning capacity	20,000.00
Future Medical Expenses	8,000.00
Special damages	23,205.00
Total
Less:
Employees’ Compensation	(123,046.00)
	1,503,677.13”

Paragraph 82 of the Judgment

6.  Paragraph 82 of the Judgment should be consequentially amended to read as follows, with underlining to show the amendments made:

“I therefore order the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay damages in the sum of HK$1,503,677.13 to the plaintiff.”

Dated the 31^st day of August 2020