Yu Wing Nin Henry v. Hung Shing Yeung

DCCJ 324/2021

[2023] HKDC 975

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 324 OF 2021

____________________

____________________

————————————————

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

————————————————

INTRODUCTION

1.This is a hearing for the assessment of damages arising out of a traffic accident that happened back in 2019, where the defendant caused damages to the plaintiff’s vehicle.  The plaintiff instituted the present proceedings on 21 January 2021 against the defendant claiming the repair costs of his vehicle.

2.On 3 September 2021, in the absence of any notice of intention to defend, the plaintiff entered an interlocutory judgment against the defendant with damages to be assessed.  This assessment hearing is held in pursuance of that judgment.

3.On behalf of the plaintiff, a Witness Statement of the plaintiff was filed on 6 April 2022.

4.At the hearing, the plaintiff was represented by counsel.  The defendant is not legally represented and did not attend the hearing.  Upon the perusal of the Affirmation of Service of Hau Ho Kwan filed herein on 24 May 2023, a sealed order of the order made by Master B Mak dated 17 April 2023 (whereby the hearing was fixed) had been duly sent to the defendant at his usual and last known address by ordinary post.  I was satisfied that the defendant was duly notified of, and elected not to attend, the hearing.  Accordingly, I decided to proceed with the hearing in his absence.

5.At the conclusion of the hearing, I indicated that a written decision was to be handed down in due course.  This is my decision.

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

6.The only documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff was a repair invoice dated 21 December 2019 issued by Luxury Auto Body Works Ltd (“Garage”).  I accept that the documentary evidence is inherently plausible.  I would attach full weight to it.

7.At the hearing, the plaintiff was called to testify.  The plaintiff adopted his witness statement as examinations-in-chief.  He also answered some questions raised by the court.  On the whole, I find nothing inherently improbable about his evidence.

PLAINTIFF’S CASE

8.The plaintiff is the registered owner of a private vehicle bearing registration number GS86.  The make of the vehicle is Porsche, and the model is Boxster S.  The vehicle was manufactured in 2006.  The date of first registration was 20 June 2006.

9.At the material times, the defendant was the driver of a private vehicle bearing registration number UV7098.

10.According to the Statement of Claim, at about 1440 hours on 4 February 2019, the defendant’s vehicle was following the plaintiff’s vehicle in sequence along the 1^st lane on the left side of Yeung Uk Road towards Tai Ho Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories.  Upon reaching near Lamppost FB3049, the plaintiff stopped his vehicle to comply with the traffic condition ahead, but the defendant failed to stop his vehicle in time and caused his vehicle to collide with the plaintiff’s vehicle.  The plaintiff said that the accident was caused by the defendant’s negligence.

11.The defendant was then convicted of careless driving at West Kowloon Law Court on 8 October 2019 under WKS8408/2019.

12.After the collision, the plaintiff’s vehicle was towed to the Garage for repair.

13.According to the plaintiff’s evidence, the front left side of the defendant’s vehicle collided with the rear right side of the plaintiff’s vehicle, and the rear right side of the plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged.

14.The repair was originally completed after six months, but it was then discovered that there was an issue with the convertible top “lock”.  And due to the lack of such “lock” mechanism, the repair was delayed for about 10 months.

DISCUSSION

15.I accept that the total repair costs for the damages sustained as a result of the accident amounted to $85,950.  I am satisfied that the damages to the taillight, bumper, rear wing, rear spoiler and tail gear were caused by the collision, and the replacement of those items were reasonable.  I am also satisfied that alignment work and paintwork on the vehicle were also reasonable.

16.The plaintiff explained why two taillights were changed when only the right taillight was damaged.  The plaintiff explained that this was due to the noticeable difference in colours between the new and the then existing taillight.

17.There is nothing before me that could challenge the reasonableness of the said amount of repair costs.

18.According to the plaintiff’s evidence, the plaintiff’s paid the sum of $85,950 in cash to the Garage.

19.I would allow the repair costs in full.

20.Accordingly, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant the repair costs in the sum of $85,950, and a final judgment is to be entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $85,950.

INTERESTS

21.The plaintiff did not make any submission in respect of interests.  I would, therefore, not make any order for pre-judgment interests.

22.There shall be post-judgment interests at the judgment rate until full payment.

COSTS

23.At the conclusion of the hearing, the plaintiff indicated that he would not claim costs for the Assessment of Damages but only claim costs for the action.

24.As to the costs of the action, costs should follow the event.  As the plaintiff has obtained the claimed sum in full, he should be regarded as the successful party.  The defendant should therefore pay the costs of this action.

25.According to the plaintiff’s statement of costs, the costs incurred by the plaintiff amounted to $55,110.  I find room for reduction in respect of the communication with the client (item C1), as well as the professional work (item D).  I do not see how there can be communication on the other side (item C2) when the defendant has all along been absent.  On a broad-brush approach, having regarded the complexity and nature of the case, I fix the plaintiff’s costs at $20,000.

DISPOSITION

26.For the reasons as aforesaid, I enter a final judgment in the plaintiff’s favour against the defendant in the sum of $85,950.

27.I also order that the defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of this action, including this assessment of damages, summarily assessed at $20,000.