Tam Ka Ho v. Newocean Oil Products Company Ltd and Others

HCPI 1325/2016

[2025] HKCFI 1255

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 1325 OF 2016

____________

BETWEEN

____________

____________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

____________________________

A. INTRODUCTION

A.1 Background & Procedural History

1.This is the assessment of damages for a personal injury case in which the plaintiff (“P”) is claiming common law damages against the 1^st defendant (“D1”) and the 2^nd Defendant (“D2”) for the loss and damage suffered by him as a result of an accident that occurred on 8 December 2014. While climbing up vertically along a rope ladder on the starboard side of an ocean-going vessel, P fell 5 metres down to the deck of a barge. He suffered serious multiple injuries resulting in the paralysis of his lower limbs (“the Accident”).

2.P was born on 26 September 1980. At the time of the Accident, he was 34 years old. He is now 45 years old. He was employed by D1 as a stock assistant.

3.By an order of HH Judge Levy dated 11 September 2020, the employees’ compensation (“EC”) proceedings in relation to the Accident, namely, DCEC 2567/2016, was settled in the sum of $2,173,644.75[1]. The sum was received by P.

4.In the present common law action, both D1 and D2 denied liability. However, they were legally represented only up to the last minute before trial on liability in this case which took place on 20 September 2022 before Deputy High Court Judge Leung (as he then was). As a result, the 3^rd defendant (“D3”) applied to join as a defendant and was allowed to join by the order of the Court on 16 September 2022.

5.At the trial on liability on 20 September 2022, D1 and D2 were absent. At the conclusion of trial on liability, DHCJ Leung found D1 and D2 100% liable without any contributory negligence on the part of P. Judgment was entered in favour of P with damages to be assessed. On 28 April 2023, DHCJ Leung gave his written reasons for judgment.

6.The 4^th defendant (“D4”) was the related EC insurer of D1. It had previously repudiated liability under the policy as it was only notified of the Accident in or about May 2017, which was a 29 months’ delay. In light of its liability under Section 43 of the Employees’ Compensation Ordinance, D4 joined in as a defendant on 4 July 2023 to defend the issue of quantum and to exercise the same rights as the defendants had in this action. D3 obtained an order on the same day to cease to be a party to the action.

7.A winding up order was issued against D1 on 29 June 2023. Leave was granted to P to continue the present action against D1. Messrs Liu, Chan & Lam are the solicitors on record as the solicitors acting for the provisional liquidators of D1. D2 is now unrepresented.

8.In the Re-Revised Statement of Damages (“Re-RSD”), P claims common law damages in this action in the sum of $34,496,874.49 plus interest after giving credit to the amount of EC of $2,173,644.75 already received by him.

9.In D4’s answer to the P’s Re-RSD (“D4’s Answer”), D4 says that the reasonable amount of damages in this action should only be at $10,276,497.85 plus interest, after deduction of the amount of EC already received by P.

10.In P’s Opening Submission (“P’s Opening”), P’s legal aid assigned counsel Mr Tim Kwok, has in my view realistically and reasonably (1) accepts that there is some element of exaggeration in his claim in this action and some items of claim cannot be supported by the evidence; and (2) claims a sum of $17,806,688.96 (inclusive of interest) plus costs net of the amount of EC of $2,173,644.75 as judgment in the assessment: See §§110 & 111 of P’s Opening.

11.On the basis of the available evidence, Mr Daniel KK Chan, D4’s counsel, accepts on behalf of D4 that the reasonable amount of damages in this case should be no more than $17,800,000.00 (inclusive of interest) net of the amount of EC of $2,173,644.75 already received by P.

12.Bearing in mind the relatively small difference between the figures estimated by P and accepted by D4, D4 invited the Court to (1) adopt the same approach and course adopted by the Court in the case of Ng Tat Kuen v Tam Che Fu and Others [2019] HKCFI 1191, HCPI 896/2013 (Bharwaney J; 3.5.2019) at §§1-6 and §§102-104; and (2) assess damages and enter final judgment against D1 and D2 in this action in the sum of no more than $17,800,000.00 (inclusive of interest) net of the amount of EC of $2,173,644.75 already received by P.

13.At the beginning of the assessment hearing before me, Mr Kwok agreed to this approach and informed the Court accordingly.

14.As D4, in its capacity as D1’s insurer in this case will have to pay out the damages to P in this action first and then may try to recover the same from D1 and/or D2 at a later date, it is important for P to prove his case before this Court and to demonstrate that the above agreed level of damages is reasonable and sanctioned by the Court.

15.To that end, Mr Kwok has called P to give evidence at the assessment. P was only asked to confirm and adopt the contents of the relevant parts of his witness statements filed for the purpose of these proceedings only. There was no cross-examination by D4. Mr Kwok also asked the Court to admit all the documentary evidence, including the various medical reports from the government hospitals and clinics and the expert reports from various medical disciplines contained in the 11 trial bundles lodged with the Court for the purpose of the assessment. No expert witnesses were called to give oral evidence pursuant to the orders made by DHCJ Leung on 1 March 2023 and 5 August 2024.

16.D2 did not attend the assessment despite having been served with the notice of the hearing. D1’s solicitors on record acting for the provisional liquidators of D1 also did not attend.

17.The Court was satisfied that D1 and D2 had been properly served with notice of the assessment and they choose not to attend. The Court ordered the hearing to proceed as scheduled.

18.Given the above, consensus reached by the parties on the approach to this assessment, I shall mainly rely on the very detailed and comprehensive written submissions prepared by Mr Kwok, ie P’s Opening, in order to decide whether the matters contained therein are reasonable for the Court to award a sum of $17.8 million as damages in this case.

A.2 P’s witness statements

19.As said, P gave evidence at the assessment hearing. He made the following witness statements in this case:

(a) Witness statement dated 24 April 2018. P was asked to adopt this statement as evidence except the parts going to liability from §§28 to 77. He made the following minor amendments to it:

(i) The commencement date of his employment with D1 should be on 3 March 2014 instead of 3 March 2015 found in the witness statement due to a typing mistake; and

(ii) P did not mention retirement age in his witness statements but confirmed in his evidence that the retirement age is at 65 which is pleaded in the Re-RSD;

(b) Supplemental witness statement dated 27 August 2018 deals with matters on liability only. P was not asked to adopt this statement;

(c) 2^nd Supplemental witness statement dated 8 January 2019. P was asked to adopt this statement as evidence except the parts concerning liability from §§2 to 5; and

(d) 3^rd Supplemental witness statement dated 6 December 2022 deals with matters on quantum only. P was asked to adopt this entire statement.

A.3 Medical Experts

20.The experts in different medical disciplines in this case are:

(a) Orthopaedics: Dr Adrian Leung for P and Dr Wally Law for Ds: See their joint report dated 21 September 2018 (“the Orthopaedic Joint Report”) at [C/103] and supplemental joint report dated 14 April 2019 (“the Orthopaedic Supplemental Joint Report”) at [C/152];

(b) Neurology: Dr YL Yu for P and Dr Edmund Woo for Ds: See their joint report dated 6 July 2018 (“the Neurological Joint Report”) at [C/162];

(c) Psychiatry: Dr Henry Kwok for P and Dr WT Law for Ds: See their joint report dated 27 October 2018 (“the Psychiatric Joint Report”) at [C/217];

(d) Urology: Joint expert Dr George Koo: See his report dated 5 June 2019 (“the Urological Report”) at [C/245]; and

(e) Occupational therapy: Joint expert Mrs Shelley Chow: See her report dated 19 August 2019 (“the OT Report”) at [C/256].

B. INJURIES & TREATMENTS

B.1 Reported Injuries

21.The following are the injuries reported by the doctors and treatments received by P at the government hospitals and clinics.

22.The injuries sustained by P included:

(a) Low back pain and bilateral lower limb numbness. Deformed left wrist with tenderness. Bilateral ankles swollen and deformed[2];

(b) Burst fracture of L2 vertebral body with retropulsion into the spinal canal causing significant narrowing of the bony spinal canal[3];

(c) Small fracture at posterior aspect of the upper sternum with minimal displacement[4];

(d) Fracture of left talus[5]; and

(e) Fracture of left distal radius[6].

B.2 Treatments received

23.The following treatments have been received by P:

(a) At Princess Margaret Hospital (“PMH”), posterior spinal fusion with instrumentation of L1 to L3[7];

(b) Closed reduction and external fixation to the left distal radius fracture[8];

(c) Transferred to Caritas Medical Centre (“CMC”) for rehabilitation on 30 December 2014[9];

(d) MRI on 23 June 2015 showed partial healing of L2 vertebral body, small retropulse bony fragment slightly indenting on conus medullaris and thecal sac, mild posterior disc protrusion at L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1 slight narrowing of bilateral foramen due to osteophytes[10];

(e) Removal of spine and distal radius implant on 16 May 2016[11];

(f) Residual retropulsion of posterior upper part of L2 causing mild spinal stenosis without compression to nerve roots[12];

(g) 70 physiotherapy sessions[13];

(h) 36 sessions of occupational therapy[14]; and

(i) Chronic axial low back pain and left wrist and ankle pain treated with medication at Department of Anaesthesia PMH[15].

24.The following psychiatric / psychological / pain treatments, diagnosis and prescriptions have been made:

(a) On 15 April 2016 at Dr Wong Chung Kwong’s clinic, diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) moderate and Major Depressive Disorder (“MDD”) moderate[16]. Medication Fluoxetine 20 mg[17];

(b) On 12 January 2018 at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (“PYNEH”), PTSD and depression. Medication Fluoxetine 30 mg, Risperidone 1 mg and Zopiclone 7.5 mg[18];

(c) On 15 October 2018, P was referred to Prince of Wales Hospital (“PWH”) and attended 14 outpatient appointments[19];

(d) On 27 August 2019 at PWH Psychiatry. Last seen on 22 July 2019 at PWH. Wheelchair bound. Required assistance for daily living activities. Moderate depressive episode and PTSD. Drugs: Cipram 40 mg, Risperidone 1 mg and Stilnox 10 mg. Active PTSD might make returning to previous work difficult. Mentally fit to give instructions for legal procedure[20];

(e) Last seen on 14 August 2023. Drugs: Cipram 40 mg, Risperidone 1 mg and Stilnox 10 mg. Mentally fit for legal procedure[21];

(f) Psychological treatment at PYNEH. Seen twice. Last seen on 19 June 2018[22];

(g) PWH Psychology offered treatment. Last appointment on 9 September 2019[23]; and

(h) PWH Pain Clinic seen on 21 September 2018, 4 January 2019 and 21 February 2020. General condition improved with reasonable pain relief. Case closed on 21 February 2020[24].

25.Occupational therapy (“OT”):

(a) Referred to PMH OT on 31 January 2018. Last assessment done on 3 April 2018[25].

26.Urology:

(a) Under the care of PWH Urology Clinic since 20 December 2018. Detrusor overactivity with leakage. When seen on 14 April 2022, on napkin for urinary incontinence but felt better with Trospium[26].

27.Condition as at 17 November 2022[27]:

(a) Paraplegia condition was stable;

(b) On electrical wheelchair. Daily living dependent on others;

(c) Spasticity on both lower limbs;

(d) Dermatitis over the perineal area;

(e) Right hand numbness subsided;

(f) Wasting of lower limb muscle and spastic muscle tone over both lower limbs;

(g) Flexion contracture over left lower limb; and

(h) Wasting of right thenar muscle.

C. EXPERTS’ OPINIONS

C.1 Orthopaedic Experts

28.On 16 May 2018, P was examined by 2 orthopaedists, Dr Adrian Leung for P and Dr Wally Law for Ds. The Orthopaedic Joint Report dated 21 September 2018 and the Supplemental Orthopaedic Joint Report dated 14 April 2019 can be found at [C/103; C/152].

29.Dr Adrian Leung for P opines as follows:

(a) Diagnosis: L2 burst fracture without neural tissue compression but complicated with post traumatic adhesive arachnoiditis, diffuse, progressive, affecting all 4 limbs and bladder and bowel sphincter; detrusor instability; loss of bowel sphincter control; spinal deformity (significant kyphoscoliosis and sagittal imbalance); left distal radius fracture; left talus fracture; right tennis elbow; PTSD; depression[28];

(b) The course of injury and disability: a gradual deterioration in lower limb power and function from June 2016 onward. Deterioration was due to spinal deformity with possible dynamic compression and diffuse arachnoiditis affecting sphinters causing incontinence, affecting the whole upper and lower back muscle causing the loss of control of his trunk as well as the significant spinal deformity. The upper limbs weak muscles were also affected by adhesive arachnoiditis. The onset of the adhesive arachnoiditis was solely traumatic in origin and was caused by the Accident[29].

(c) Removing of the implant was not the best option as it might accelerate spinal deformity. The better option was to have treatment for the deteriorating neurological deficit. After proper investigation and treatment, P could still be able to ambulate without assistant for 30 minutes[30];

(d) The left wrist and left ankle have achieved satisfactory recovery[31]. The left hand had residual weakness on a full grip. Current condition of the back represents partial healing the L2 fracture complicated with progressive deformity and neurological deficit. The current physical finding of zero motor power in both legs on all levels are consistent with the diagnosis of adhesive arachnoiditis. Supporting factors are progressive deterioration in neurological function, destrusor instability. MRI of 25 July 2018 showed focal clumping of nerve roots of cauda equina at the retropulsion level of the L2 body. Thethering of nerve roots onto the meninges, likely secondary to arachnoiditis related to old insults; torso numbness from umbilicus downwards fits the diagnosis of adhesive arachnoiditis[32];

(e) The sensory deficit and motor weakness can be totally explained by anatomy. There are no symptoms of ramification or psychological somatization in P’s case[33];

(f) The left shoulder pain and right elbow weakness were secondary symptoms to the injury causing paraplegia[34];

(g) Symptoms: left shoulder and right elbow symptoms related to myofascial aching due to over-use; adhesive arachnoiditis affecting the sphinters causing incontinence; also affecting whole upper and lower back muscle causing a loss of trunk control requiring the need of truncal support to sit up and significant spinal deformity; upper limbs also affected by adhesive arachnoiditis; weak muscles globally over upper limbs which cannot be explained unless same disease process affecting the lower limb is taking place over the upper limb as well[35];

(h) Future treatment: Dr Leung agrees with Dr Law’s assessment at §§133 and 134 of the Orthopaedic Joint Report[36];

(i) Dr Leung recommends additional interventions of long fusion from upper thoracic to pelvic bone, by screws and rod fixation and bone grafting to halt further deformity if not just correcting it, and also intradural neurolysis with expansion duraplasty[37]. Surgery fee would be $700,000. Total hospital bill would be $1.5 million[38];

(j) Working capacity: Wheelchair bound; loss of truncal control; can work from home on sedentary work such as helpdesk and hotline operator; further deterioration of motor control will be expected[39];

(k) Sick leave: Sick leave from injury to joint examination on 16 May 2018 appropriate, ie 41 months[40];

(l) Life expectancy: For an incomplete C5 ASIA grade D tetraplegia, 44 years counting from injury[41].

30.Dr Wally Law for Ds opines as follows:

(a) Diagnosis: L2 burse fracture with neuronal compression, complicated with post traumatic arachnoiditis, detrusor instability and spinal deformity; left distal radius fracture; left talus fracture; PTSD; left shoulder and right elbow myofascial pain[42];

(b) There was lower limb neurological deficit immediately after the injury[43]. The degree of the initial neurological deficit is consistent with the CT finding of fracture of L2[44];

(c) Complete union of the talu fracture. Satisfactory recovery[45];

(d) The L2 fracture was complicated with mild grade 2 fluctuating levels of lower limb weakness. The picture was one of gradual deterioration rendering P unable to walk and became wheelchair bound due to post-traumatic arachnoiditis and the spinal deformity, compatible with partial recovery of the L2 fracture with residual disability. The pain in the left shoulder and the right elbow are likely due to myofascial symptoms after over-use without any structural damage or major pathology[46];

(e) Left wrist and left ankle achieved satisfactory recovery. Left hand had residual weakness on a full grip. The finding of zero motor power on both legs are not consistent with the government clinical record[47];

(f) The apparent motor weakness on both lower limbs could be due to adhesive spinal arachnoiditis on the cauda equina at L2, physical deconditioning after prolonged in-activity, somatization of mental illness or symptoms ramification. The detrusor instability and bilateral lower limb weakness were due to adhesive spinal arachnoiditis[48];

(g) Zero motor power indicates complete paraplegia which should have been obvious at SAHK (New Page Inn). The numbness of front torso from umbilicus downwards with reduction to light touch up to 80% is not consistent with clinical records. MRI showed no neuronal compression and the arachnoiditis involved the L2 level only. The finding of sensory deficit and motor weakness are out of proportion to the clinical record and the degree of the Accident[49];

(h) Further treatment: No further surgery is required; require further regular assessment by orthosurgeon, physiotherapist, occupational therapist; psychiatric specialist, urologist specialist and community nurse[50];

(i) Working capacity: indoor sedentary work with special arrangements; indoor executive work is feasible if special arrangements are in place;

(j) Sick leave: Maximum improvement achieved by end of July 2016. Sick leave up to 31 October 2018 would not be necessary. In other words, Dr Law thinks sick leave of 19 months should be reasonable[51]; and

(k) Life expectancy: 40 years from injury[52].

C.2 Neurological Experts

31.On 14 May 2018, P was examined by 2 neurologists, Dr YL Yu for P and Dr Edmund KW Woo for Ds. Their Neurological Joint Report can be found at [C/162].

32.Dr YL Yu for P opines as follows:

(a) Diagnosis: Incomplete paraplegia despite surgical correction; fracture of left radius and left talus[53];

(b) Disability: Some symptoms and signs were not consistent with objective evidence; exaggeration of the degree of lower limb weakness but does not mean paraparesis insignificant. P could stand and walk a few steps with the aid of a frame[54];

(c) Work capacity: Not able to resume pre-injury work; should be able to work in sedentary jobs such as a clerk[55];

(d) Sick leave: 12 months[56];

(e) Future treatment: Consultation once every 4 months at $700 each time. Investigation cost: $2,000 per year[57]; and

(f) Life expectancy: 38.7 years from date of report, ie 6 July 2018[58];

33.Dr Edmund Woo for Ds opines as follows:

(a) Diagnosis: Incomplete paraplegia despite surgical correction; fracture of left radius and left talus[59];

(b) Disability: Total loss of strength in legs is most unusual; no significant muscle wasting; deterioration of leg function inconsistent with trauma to spinal cord or spinal nerve roots which had a history of recovery; gross exaggeration; can probably rise and maintain a standing position but cannot work without assistance[60];

(c) Work capacity: Should be able to work as a clerk, telephonist or packaging worker[61];

(d) Sick leave: 12 months[62];

(e) Future treatment: Consultation once every 4 months at $700 each time. Investigation cost: $2,000 per year[63]; and

(f) Life expectancy: 38.7 years from date of report, ie 6 July 2018[64].

C.3 Psychiatric Experts

34.On 3 May 2018, P was examined by psychiatrists, Dr Henry WM Kwok for P and Dr WT Law for Ds. Their Psychiatric Joint Report can be found at [C/217].

35.Dr Henry Kwok for P opines as follows:

(a) Diagnosis: PTSD; major depressive disorder[65];

(b) Severity: PTSD mild; MDD moderate[66];

(c) Prognosis: PTSD good; MDD depends on progression of pain symptoms and functional recovery[67];

(d) Work capacity: May be able to work as a telephone operator for 3 to 4 hours per day[68];

(e) Sick leave: 2 years from injury[69]; and

(f) Future treatment: May continue the follow up in PWH once every 2 months for $900 over a period of 18 months; private sector offers better service, costing $1,500 to $2,000 per consultation and medication for $200, ie $1,700 x 9 times = $15,300. Also, psychological therapy for 18 months every 2 months, cost: $2,000 to $2,500. $2,000 x 9 times = $18,000[70].

36.Dr WT Law for Ds opines as follows:

(a) Diagnosis: PTSD[71];

(b) Severity: PTSD moderate[72];

(c) Prognosis: PTSD good[73];

(d) Work capacity: Should be able to return to pre-injury job from a mental perspective[74];

(e) Sick leave: 3 months from first psychiatric consultation[75]; and

(f) Future treatment: Should carry on with public sector. Cost of further treatment would be around $1,000[76].

C.4 Urological Expert

37.On 2 April 2019, P was examined by an urologist, Dr George Koo (jointly appointed by the parties). The Urological Joint Report can be found at [C/245].

(a) Diagnosis: Mild residual urinary and bowel dysfunction from the spinal injury[77];

(b) Symptoms: Agree with neurologists of exaggeration of symptoms[78];

(c) Recovery: Urinary and bowel dysfunction have recovered fairly well. Laboratory tests showed normal figure of kidney function throughout. P’s self-admission that no bowel dysfunction or soiling[79]; and

(d) Future treatment: Assessment by urological specialist once a year. Cost is $2,000 per year[80].

D. ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

D.1 Pain, suffering & Loss of Amenities (“PSLA”)[81]

38.Mr Kwok has very fairly summed up the overall picture of the injuries and disabilities suffered by P as follows:

(a) Incomplete paraplegia caused by post-traumatic arachnoiditis but the paraparesis is not insignificant;

(b) The very severe condition of the paraparesis was exaggerated with effect of emulating total and complete paraplegia. This was agreed by the 2 neurologists and the urologist;

(c) P definitely requires a wheelchair and assistance for daily activities but he could ambulate to some degree such as standing or walking a few steps with the aid of a frame;

(d) There were PTSD and MDD or some degree of depression. But these are not significant and can to a large extent be reversed. The surveillance videos indicate normal emotional condition[82]; and

(e) The severity of the residual urinary and bowel dysfunction will be mild.

39.I agree with the above summary of the principal injuries and disabilities suffered by P as a result of the Accident.

40.Thus, in summary, this case involves a male plaintiff of 34 at the time of the Accident in good health who sustained severe injuries reducing him to an incomplete paraplegic with significant paraparesis which requires dependence of a wheelchair and assistance for daily activities for the rest of his life.

D.2 The PSLA Award

41.A helpful summary of PSLA awards post Chan Pui Ki v Leung On [1996] 2 HKLR 401 was set out in the case of Ng Tat Kuen v Tam Che Fu & Others [2019] HKCFI 1191, HCPI 896/2013 (Bharwaney J; 3.5.2019), at §§88-97. Mr Kwok submits that the closest case is Lai Chi Pon v Toto Steel & Iron Works Ltd & Others, unreported, PI 1149/1995 (Cheung J; 18.7.1997) where the plaintiff suffered incomplete paraplegia and was awarded $1.5 million back in July 1997.

42.In the recent case of Kok Wai Leung v Ho Tin Building Material Limited [2022] HKCFI 1183, HCPI 676/2017 (DHCJ Leung; 27.4.2022), the Court awarded $2.25 million for PSLA. The injuries and disabilities of the plaintiff in that case were as follows:

(a) Fracture of C5 vertebral body with posterior displacement, bilateral inferior facets of C5 posterior element and left superior facet of C6 vertebra[83];

(b) Tetraparesis[84]. Severe weakness of his upper limbs and complete paralysis of the lower limbs[85];

(c) Can self-feed with a spoon is strapped to his right hand[86];

(d) Legs lack voluntary movement[87]; and

(e) No sensation bowel movements[88].

43.Mr Kwok submits that the tetra-injuries and disabilities in Kok Wai Leung v Ho Tin Building Material Limited, surpra, are more serious than those of the present case. I agree.

44.Taking into account P’s injuries and disabilities and his exaggeration of the paraparesis (whether voluntary or not), Mr Kwok submits that an award for PSLA of $1.6 million would be reasonable.

45.In my judgment, the suggested sum of $1.6 million by Mr Kwok as PSLA award in this case is a reasonable amount. I so make such an award.

E. PRE-TRIAL LOSS

E.1 Sick leave

46.The medical experts’ opinion on sick leave period have been summed up by Mr Kwok in P’s Opening as follows:

Orthopaedists

(a) Dr Adrian Leung for P: sick leave from injury to joint examination on 16 May 2018 appropriate, ie 41 months[89];

(b) Dr Wally Law for Ds: sick leave: maximum improvement achieved by the end of July 2016. Sick leave up to 31 October 2018 would not be necessary. In other words, Dr Law thinks sick leave of 19 months should be sufficient[90].

Neurologists

(a) Dr YL Yu for P: appropriate sick leave is 12 months[91];

(b) Dr Edmund Woo for Ds: appropriate sick leave is 12 months[92].

Psychiatrists

(a) Dr Henry Kwok for P: 2 years from injury[93];

(b) Dr WT Law for Ds: 3 months from first psychiatric consultation[94].

47.Thus, with the exception of Dr Adrian Leung, the other medical experts took a conservative approach on P’s extent of disability. On balance, Mr Kwok submits that it would appear that sick leave of 36 months would be reasonable.

48.I agree 36 months is a reasonable and appropriate period to represent sick leave in this case.

E.2 Monthly earnings at the time of the Accident

49.P started working for D1/D2 on 3 March 2014[95].

50.Prior to the Accident, P worked for D1/D2 as a stock assistant with a monthly earning of $10,000 plus allowance[96].

51.At the time of the Accident on 8 December 2014, P worked as a mainland operation co-ordinator with a monthly earning of $15,000[97].

52.$15,000 has been pleaded in the Re-RSD[98]. D4’s Answer agreed to $15,000[99].

53.I therefore find $15,000 as his monthly income at the time of the Accident.

E.3 Pre-trial loss of earnings[100]

54.Mr Kwok submits and I agree that, on the evidence and realistically, P would not be able to obtain gainful employment in the open market for the rest of his life.

55.At the time of the Accident, P had been studying Edexcel BTEC Level 5 HND in Construction and the Built Environment (Civil Engineering) at CPE (Continuous Professional Education Centre). But for the Accident, it is likely that P would have graduated from the course in 2018[101].

56.The P’s projected career path pleaded in the Re-RSD is that upon the completion of the Edexcel course in 2018, P would have become a site foreman with a monthly earning of $25,708.80 in 2018[102].

57.And then from December 2018, he would have worked as a site agent with a monthly earning of $30,000[103].

58.D4’s Answer disagrees, alleging that the career path as pleaded is too remote and unsupported by evidence[104].

59.On evidence, P stated in his witness statement that he had completed some parts of the Edexcel course in the end of 2013 and he planned to complete the rest by the end of 2015. At that time, he would be able to return to the construction industry working as a site foreman for 3 years and then as a senior site foreman later on[105].

60.Mr Kwok has fairly pointed out in P’s Opening that the timing of the projected career path to the site foreman and to the site agent pleaded in the Re-RSD and P’s witness statement is therefore somewhat different.

61.According to the documentary evidence:

(a) P completed a short course in Building Studies on 21 December 2012[106];

(b) The Edexcel course lasts for 18 months structured by an average of attendance of 3 nights per week. There was no examination[107];

(c) The CPE letter dated 23 February 2013 offered P a place in the Edexcel course[108]. P paid the tuition fee on 28 February 2013[109]; and

(d) Accordingly, P commenced the Edexcel course some time after February 2013.

62.By the end of 2013, P had completed some parts of the Edexcel course. He planned to complete the rest in 2 years’ time by the end of 2015[110].

63.The market salaries offered for site foreman:

Assistant Foreman	Foreman	Senior Foreman
$20,000 - $25,000[111]	$20,400	$25,000 - $30,000
$20,000	$28,000 - $32,000	$25,000 - $50,000
$14,000 - $30,000	$25,000 - $30,000
$18,000 - $25,000	$25,000 - $35,000
$16,000 – $20,000	$20,000 - $30,000
	$18,000 - $24,000
	$28,000 - $33,000
	$22,595

64.P says he would have commenced working a site foreman for 3 years and then senior site foreman later on[112]. That would probably have been on 1 March 2016 after Chinese New Year. Prior to 1 March 2016, P would have remained a mainland operation co-ordinator with D1 and D2 with a monthly earning of $15,000.

65.The period between the time of the Accident on 8 December 2014 (ie date of Accident) and 28 February 2016 (estimated date starting as assistant site foreman) was approximately 15 months. Loss over this period would be $15,000 x 15 months = $225,000.

66.P contends that he would have worked as a site foreman for 3 years and then promoted to senior site foreman[113].

67.Mr Kwok submits that, realistically, it would be fair to say P would have started working as an assistant site foreman on 1 March 2016. If there was any promotion, the next post would be site foreman and then senior site foreman.

68.Mr Kwok submits that P progressing to working as an assistant site foreman is supported by the evidence from the CPE.

69.For the question of whether he would have been promoted upwards and if so when, Mr Kwok has fairly conceded that there seems to be a lack of supporting evidence. Accordingly, Mr Kwok submits that it would be reasonable to assess the second pre-trial period on the basis of loss of earnings of an assistant site foreman.

70.The period from 1 March 2016 (start of an assistant site foreman) to assessment of damages on 26 February 2025 (ie 9 years or 108 months).

71.From the available market data above, I accept it is reasonable to assume a salary of $15,000. Loss over the second pre-trial period therefore would be $15,000 x 108 months = $1,620,000.

72.Total pre-trial loss of earnings would be $225,000 + $1,620,000 = $1,845,000 with 5% MPF of $92,250 giving a total of $1,937,250.

73.I further accept that P is now permanently incapacitated and there is a total loss of earning capacity. Mr Kwok has very fairly accepted that P would have some minor residual earning capacity capable of earning $1,500 per month in a shelter workshop. See Re-RSD at [A/3(44) at §106].

74.As mentioned above, I consider sick leave of 36 months is reasonable in the circumstances of this case. The total pre-trial period is 10 years and 2.5 months or 122.5 months. The residual earnings period would therefore be 122.5 – 36 months = 86.5 months.

75.Accordingly, there would have been earnings of $1,500 x 86.5 months = $129,750 without MPF.

76.I find therefore that the net total pre-trial loss of earnings would be at $1,937,250 - $129,750 = $1,807,500.

E.4 Pre-trial value of services[114]

77.P was taken care of at various medical institutions. He was admitted to New Page Inn for 21.5 months from November 2016 to September 2018[115]. P stated that he was well looked after at New Page Inn[116].

78.During P’s stay at the medical institutions, his late mother paid regular visit to him there[117]. His mother passed away on 19 June 2017[118].

79.The father was 73 years old as of April 2018[119]. The father is 80 years old at the time of the assessment hearing.

80.Due to their old age and the late mother’s then prevailing medical condition, the father’s and the late mother’s ability to deliver care and services to P was very doubtful.

81.Again, Mr Kwok has very fairly accepted that there is not enough evidence to support an award for pre-trial loss of services. I agree and make no award for such loss.

E.5 Pre-trial special damages[120]

82.P claims that a total of $792,533.24 pre-trial expenses have been incurred consisting of the following[121]:

(a) Medical consultation and rehabilitation: $207,527[122];

(b) Mobility expenses: $202,300[123];

(c) Medical supplies/supplements: $114,918.20[124];

(d) Utilities: $9,814.30[125];

(e) Transportation: $9,197.74[126];

(f) Domestic helper/caretaker: $248,776[127].

83.I consider the above pre-trial expenses necessary and reasonable. I would allow them in full.

F. POST-TRIAL LOSS

F.1 Post-trial loss of earnings[128]

84.P was born on 26 September 1980. P was 34 at the time of Accident. P is 44.5 years old at the time of assessment of damages in February 2025.

85.Retirement age at D1 is assumed to be at 65[129].

86.According to Table 9 of the PI Tables 2019, the career multiplier at 2.5% would be at (16.77 + 16.11) / 2 = 16.44.

87.On the evidence, Mr Kwok submits that it would not be unreasonable to assess post-trial loss of earnings on the basis that P would have been working as a site foreman with a monthly income of $18,000. I agree with his submission.

88.Loss of future earnings would therefore be ($18,000 - $1,500 residual earnings) x 12 x 16.44 = $3,255,120 with 5% MPF of $162,756 giving a total of $3,417,876.

89.I so find the above figure as the loss of future earnings in this case.

F.2 Loss of earning capacity[130]

90.P is 44.5 years old at the time of assessment. His remaining career life would have been 65 – 44.5 = 20.5 years.

91.Given P’s severe disabilities plus the likely job vacancy fluctuations, Mr Kwok submits and I agree that it is reasonable to assume that he will be off work intermittently.

92.Thus, I find an award of $1,500 x 24 months = $36,000 would be reasonable as loss of earning capacity in this case.

F.3 Loss of society[131]

93.In Ng Tat Kuen v Tam Che Fu and Others [2019] HKCFI 1191, HCPI 896/2013 (Bharwaney J; 3.5.2019), Bharwaney J awarded $15,000 under this head at §100.

94.Here, P’s family consisted of:

(a) His 73 years old father as of April 2018[132]. The father would be 80 years old by now;

(b) His late mother who passed away on 19 June 2017[133];

(c) His elder sister who is an operation manager[134].

95.P was admitted to New Page Inn from late November 2016 to mid-September 2018[135].

96.Upon discharge from New Page Inn, the Social Welfare Department have relocated P and his father to a small public housing unit in Tai Wai in mid-September 2018. P is now residing with his father and a domestic helper[136].

97.Until his late mother passed away in June 2017, P, his late mother and 80-year-old father have been residing in the same household[137]. The sister has long been living apart.

98.Again, Mr Kwok has fairly accepted that there is not enough evidence to support an award for loss of society.

99.Hence, I make no award under this head.

F.4 Life Multiplier

100.P was born on 26 September 1980 and was 34 at the time of the Accident. The assessment date was on 26 February 2025.

101.Medical experts’ opinion on the P’s life expectancy:

Orthopaedists

(a) Dr Adrian Leung for P: for an incomplete C5 ASIA grade D tetraplegia, 44 years counting from injury[138].

(b) Dr Wally Law for Ds: life expectancy is at 40 years from injury[139].

Neurologists

(a) Dr YL Yu for P: life expectancy is estimated at 38.7 years from date of report, ie 6 July 2018[140];

(b) Dr Edmund Woo for Ds: Life expectancy is estimated at 38.7 years from date of report, ie 6 July 2018[141].

102.According to the orthopaedic experts, P’s life expectancy would be 40 or 44 years from date of the Accident. The mid-point is 42 years, or 504 months (42 years x 12). The time lapse between the date of the Accident on 8 December 2014 is 10 years and 2.5 months or 122 months and 18 days. The net life expectancy at the time of assessment of damages would therefore be at 504 months – 122.5 months = 381.5 months, ie 381.5/12 years = 31.8 years.

103.According to the neurological experts, the agreed life expectancy is 38.7 years from report on 6 July 2018, ie 38.7 years x 12 = 464.4 months. The time lapse between the date of the neurological report (ie 6 July 2018) and date of the assessment of damages (26 February 2025) is 6 years and 7.5 months or 79 months and 20 days. The net life expectancy at the time of assessment of damages would therefore be at 464.4 months – 79.5 months = 384.9 months, ie 384.9/12 years = 32 years.

104.The average between the 2 estimates of 31.8 years and 32 years is 31.9 years. Mr Kwok submits that the medical evidence is sound enough to justify a 32-year life expectancy. I agree with his submission.

105.According to Chan Pak Ting v Chan Chi Kuen (No 2) [2013] 2HKLRD1, the discount rate for plaintiffs with needs exceeding 10 years is 2.5%. According to Table 28 of Personal Injury Tables Hong Kong 2019 (Ng Tat Kuen at [§17]), the term of 32 would attract a life multiplier of 22.12.

F.5 Cost of future medical treatment[142]

106.The parties have jointly instructed Mrs Shelly Chow to examine P. The OT report dated 19 August 2019 can be found at [C/256]. I agree with the recommendations and estimated cost for different items of expenses put forward by Mrs Chow.

107.Mrs Chow’s recommendation on future medical treatment:

1.	Occupational therapy[143] For 3 months: 2 session per week x 4 x 3 x $1,200 per session = $28,800; • For following 6 months: 1 session per week x 4 x 6 x $1,200 per session = $28,800; • For following 6 months: 1 session per month x 6 x $1,200 per session = $7,200; • For following 1 year: 1 session per quarter x 4 x $1,200 per session = $4,800; • For following 3 years: 1 session per year x 3 x $1,200 per session = $3,600; • Thereafter: PRN (as needed basis) • Total: $73,200.	$ 73,200
2.	Physiotherapy[144] • For 6 months: 2 session per week x 4 x 6 x $1,280 per session = $61,440; • For following 6 months: 1 session per week x 4 x 6 x $1,280 per session = $30,720; • For following 6 months: 1 session per month x 6 x $1,280 per session = $7,680; • For following 1 year: 1 session per quarter x 4 x $1,280 per session = $5,120; • For following 3 years: 1 session per year x 3 x $1,280 per session =$3,840; • Thereafter: PRN (as needed basis) • Total: $108,800.	$ 108,800

F.6 Cost of accommodation needs[145]

108.Mrs Chow’s recommendations on costs of alternative accommodation and modification expenses[146]:

109.P’s current unit is 300+ sq ft. Mrs Chow recommends 570.28 sq ft net.

110.A glance at the rental transactions on property websites gives a rental range (saleable area) of $28 to $34 per sq ft, giving an average of $31 per sq ft. in Tai Wai[147].

111.The rental and associated costs are assessed as follow:

(a) Rental: 570 sq ft x $31 per sq ft = $17,670 per month. Cost of rental would be [$17,670 – $2,109 existing rent = $15,561) x 12 x 22.12 = $4,130,512;

(b) Legal costs: Nil. The estate agent can deal with this;

(c) Agency fee: life expectancy is 32 years and the life multiplier is 22.12. Assuming 3 tenancies are needed, the cost is $17,670 x 0.5 x 3 tenancies = $26,505;

(d) Stamp duty: $17,670 x 12 x 1% x 3 tenancies = $6,361;

(e) Moving costs: $4,000 x 3 tenancies = $12,000;

(f) Renovation and decoration costs: $130,000 x 3 tenancies = $390,000;

(g) Electricity bill is likely to increase by 50% to 100% especially during summer[148]. It is accepted that the increases if any in the future would be difficult to ascertain. P accepts that these items may be included in the overall amount of damages;

(h) Total: $4,565,378.

F.7 Technical aids, assistive devices and consumables[149]

112.Adaptive equipment required[150]:

1.	Powered wheelchair with tilt-in-space: Cost: [$49,000 + ($49,000 x 0.3)] / 5 years x 22.12 years	$ 281,808.8
2.	Manual folding recliner wheelchair: Cost: $6,000 + ($6,000 x 0.3)	$ 7,800
3.	Wheelchair cushion: Cost: $2,000 / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 14,746.67
4.	Portable wheelchair ramp: Cost: $1,650 / 6 years x 22.12 years	$ 6,083
5.	Mobile powered hoist: Cost: [$29,000 + ($29,000 x 0.3)] / 6 years x 22.12 years	$ 138,987.33
6.	Tilt-in-space shower commode chair: Cost: [$14,700 + ($14,700 x 0.3)] / 4 years x 22.12 years	$ 105,678.3
7.	Grab rails: Cost: ($180 x 2 nos.) / 4 years x 22.12 years	$ 1,990.8
8.	Urinal: Cost: $40 x 2 nos. x 22.12 years	$ 1,769.6
9.	Long handed bath brush / sponge: Cost: $50 x 22.12 years	$ 1,106
10.	Long handled reacher: Cost: $80 / 4 years x 22.12 years	$ 442.4
11.	Long handled dressing stick Cost: $90 / 4 years x 22.12 years	$ 497.7
12.	Wheelchair safety belt: Cost: $450 / 2 years x 22.12 years	$ 4,977
13.	Hospital type home care bed: Cost: [$25,000 + ($25,000 x 0.3)] / 8 years x 22.12 years	$ 89,862.5
14.	Anti-decubitus mattress: Cost: [$3,000 + ($3,000 x 0.3)] / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 28,756
15.	Bolsters and cushion: Cost: $300 / 2 years x 22.12 years	$ 3,318
16.	Wedge cushion: Cost: $580 / 2 years x 22.12 years	$ 6,414.8
17.	Overbed table: Cost: $2,350 / 6 years x 22.12 years	$ 8,663.67
18.	Exercise items: Cost: ($72 x 22.12 years) + ($180 / 3 x 22.12 years)	$ 2,919.84
19.	Surgical scissors, forceps / tweezers and kidney dish: Cost: ($37 + $30 + $140) / 3 x 22.12 years	$ 1,526.28
20.	Covered tray for dressings: Cost: $220 / 5 years x 22.12 years	$ 973.28
21.	Padded ankle / heel protectors: Cost: ($900 x 2 nos.) x 22.12 years	$ 39,816
22.	Wheelchair lapboard: Cost: $390 / 5 years x 22.12 years	$ 1,725.36
23.	Wheelchair poncho: Cost: $300 / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 2,212
24.	Bedpan: Cost: $110 / 2 years x 22.12 years	$ 1,216.6
25.	Padded foot drop splints: Cost: ($1,280 x 2 nos.) / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 18,875.73
26.	Dycem non-slip mat: Cost: $700 / 5 years x 22.12 years	$ 3,096.8
27.	Plastic drawers for consumables storage: Cost: $499 / 5 years x 22.12 years	$ 2,207.58
28.	Backpack: Cost: $200 x 22.12 years	$ 4,424
29.	Electric shaver: Cost: $398 / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 2,934.59
30.	Exercise equipment e.g. active passive trainer: Cost: $2,280 / 5 years x 22.12 years	$ 10,086.72
31.	T-shaped immobilizer: Cost: ($84 x 4 nox.) / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 2,477.44
32.	Electric toothbrush: Cost: [($838 / 3 years) + ($90 x 2)] x 22.12 years	$ 7,174.18
33.	Blood pressure monitor: Cost: $420 / 4 years x 22.12 years	$ 2,322.6
34.	Thermometer: Cost: $380 / 2 years x 22.12 years	$ 4,202.8
35.	Overbed monkey pull Cost: $3,500 / 8 years x 22.12 years	$ 9,677.5
	Total:	$ 820,771.87

113.Consumables required[151]:

1.	Adult disposable diapers: Cost: $48/10pcs x 7 pcs/day x 365 days x 22.12 years	$ 271,279.68
2.	Diaper liners: Cost: $400/240pcs x 6 pcs/day x 365 days x 22.12 years	$ 80,738
3.	Wet wipes: Cost: $49.9/3 packs x 7 packs/month x 12 months x 22.12 years	$ 30,906.06
4.	Underpads: Cost: $498/120pcs x 365 days x 22.12 years	$ 33,506.27
5.	Instant hand sanitizer: Cost: $56 x 22.12 years	$ 1,238.72
6.	Antiseptic/disinfectant: Cost: $100/5 bottles x 2 bottle/year x 22.12 years	$ 884.8
7.	Dressings kits: Cost: $10 x 25 sets/year x 22.12 years	$ 5,530
8.	PE gloves: Cost: $10 x 12 months x 22.12 years	$ 2,654.4
9.	Tissues: Cost: $25/5 x 52 weeks x 22.12 years	$ 5,751.2
10.	Massage and moisture lotion: Cost: ($68 + $120/2) x 12 months x 22.12 years	$ 33,976.32
11.	Sterile cotton wool balls: Cost: $115 x 3 bags x 22.12 years	$ 7,631.4
12.	Antiseptic packs: Cost: $4.5 x 25 x 22.12 years	$ 2,488.5
13.	Sterile 6”cotton applicators: Cost: $7.5 x 3 x 22.12 years	$ 497.7
14.	Paper surgical tape: Cost: $50/2 x 22.12 years	$ 553
15.	Gauze: Cost: $58.5 x 2 x 22.12 years	$ 2,588.04
16.	Duoderm: Cost: $210 x 2 x 22.12 years	$ 9,290.4
17.	Alcohol pads: Cost: $20 x 6 x 22.12 years	$ 2,654.4
18.	Disposable face masks: Cost: $7.5 x 10 x 22.12 years	$ 1,659
19.	Aqueous cream: Cost: $29.9 x 4 x 22.12 years	$ 2,645.55
20.	Barrier cream: Cost: $113 x 12 x 22.12 years	$ 29,994.72
21.	Kam Sing Medical Co 75% Isoproyl Alcohol 120 ml bottle: Cost: $10 x 4 x 22.12 years	$ 884.8
22.	St. Luke’s prickly heat powder 160 g tin: Cost: $15 x 4 x 22.12 years	$ 1,327.2
23.	No-rinse skin cleansing foam: Cost: $105 x 6 x 22.12 years	$ 13,935.6
24.	Disposable aprons: Cost: $1.2 x 2 x 365 days x 22.12 years	$ 19,377.12
25.	Bleach: Cost: $14.9/2 x 52 weeks x 22.12 years	$ 8,569,29
26.	Garbage bags: Cost: $26.9/100pcs x 2 x 365 days x 22.12 years	$ 4,343,7
27.	Medications – HA prescribed and privately purchased and Traditional Chinese Herbal Medicines: Cost: (15 + $300)/month x 12 x 22.12 years	$ 83,613.6
	Total:	$ 658,554.48

114.Community nursing[152]:

1.	Private sector: (a) Life extension: Cost: $730/2 hours x 12 x 22.12 = $193,771.2; (b) iLoveCare Service Group: Cost: $780/2 hours visit x 12 x 22.12 = $207,043.2; (c) Quality HealthCare Nursing Agency Limited Cost: $600/1 hour visit x 12 x 22.12 = $159,264.	$ 560,078.4
	Total:	$ 560,078.4

F.8 Post-trial cost of care and attention[153]

115.Domestic helper[154]:

One domestic helper
1.	Initial cost for hiring an overseas helper (handling fees by employment agency including contract, visa, medical examination and air ticket to Hong Kong): Cost: $7,980	$ 7,980
2.	Basic (minimum) monthly salary: Cost: $4,630/month x 12 x 22.12 years	$ 1,228,987.2
3.	Relief helper (Sundays, statutory holidays and annual leave): - $970/12 hours per day for 65 days in a year (for 12 hours per day); annual cost: $970 x 65 days/per year = $63,050 Cost: $63,050 x 22.12 years	$ 1,394,666
4.	General/workers compensation insurance: - $1,350/2-year contract Cost: $1,350/2 x 22.12 years	$ 14,931
5.	Employment contract renewal including work visa renewal and Hong Kong immigration entry visa fee: - $1,280/ 2-year contract Cost: $1,280/2 x 22.12 years	$ 14,156.8
6.	Food (Minimum): Cost: $1,075/month x 12 x 22.12 years	$ 285,348
7.	Clothing: Cost: $500/2 years x 22.12 years	$ 5,530
8.	Miscellaneous e.g. electricity, water etc: Cost: $150/month x 12 x 22.12 years	$ 39,816
	Total:	$ 2,991,415

F.9 Cost of transportation needs[155]

116.Mrs Chow’s recommendation is $2,000/month. The cost would be $2,000 x 12 x 22.12 years = $530,880.

F.10 Membership of self-help organisations[156]

117.The cost would be $2,000/year x 22.12 years = $44,240.

F.11 Cost of social needs[157]

118.Mrs Chow’s recommendation on socialization needs is $1,000/month. The cost would be $1,000 x 12 x 22.12 years = $265,440.

F.12 Need for air-conditioning, dehumidifier, heaters[158]

119.

1.	Air conditioning: Cost: {[($5,680 + $8,180) + [($5,680 + $8,180) x 0.3]} / 6 years x 22.12 years	$ 66,426.36
2.	Dehumidifiers: Cost: [$2,750 + ($2,750 x 0.3)] / 4 years x 22.12 years	$ 19,769.75
3.	Heaters: Cost: {[($1,498 + $3,198) + ($1,498 + $3,198) x 0.3]} / 3 years x 22.12 years	$ 45,012.73
	Total:	$ 131,208.84

F.13 Neurological treatment recommended by 2 neurological experts[159]

120.Both neurological experts agreed that P should receive treatment in the future. Their recommendation is consultation once every 4 months at $700 each time. Investigation cost: $2,000 per year:

(a) Consultation: $700 x 3 x 22.12 years = $46,452;

(b) Investigation cost: $2,000 x 22.12 years = $44,240;

(c) Total assessed: $90,692.

F.14 Psychology / counselling treatment recommended by psychiatric experts[160]

121.Dr Kwok’s for P recommendation[161] is $1,500 to $2,000 per psychiatric consultation and medication for $200, ie $1,700 once every 2 months over 18 months, ie $1,700 x 9 times = $15,300.

122.Also, psychological therapy for 18 months every 2 months, cost: $2,000 to $2,500[162]. $2,000 x 9 times = $18,000.

123.Total assessed: $15,300 + $18,000 = $33,300.

F.15 Urological treatment recommended by urologist[163]

124.Dr Koo’s recommendation is urological assessment once a year at $2,000 per year.

125.The assessed cost would be $2,000 x 22.12 years = $44,240.

F.16 Extra cost of holidays/social activities[164]

126.Mrs Chow has not given a firm recommendation. This item was not pursued.

F.17 Future orthopaedic surgery

127.Dr Adrian Leung recommends future surgery at an estimated fee of $700,000[165].

128.On the other hand, Dr Wally Law says that no further surgery is required[166].

129.Given the risk of surgery, especially on P who sustained severe injuries and is suffering from severe disabilities, P accepts that whether or not to take up a future surgery would be very uncertain. Also in light of the conflicting evidence on the need for future surgery, P accepts that an award is unlikely.

130.I consider that as a reasonable concession and make no award under this head.

G.   SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS

131.In summary, based on the submissions made by P’s counsel, I find the following as damages in this case:

GENERAL DAMAGES
	PSLA	$ 1,600,000
	- Interest at 2% from Writ (30.11.16) to the date of assessment of damages (26.2.25), ie 99 months	$ 264,000
	Sub-total:	$ 1,864,000
	Sub-total for General Damages:	$ 1,864,000
	PRE-TRIAL LOSS
	Pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF	$ 1,807,500
	Pre-trial value of services	$ 0
	Special damages	$ 792,533.24
	Sub-total:	$ 2,600,033.24
	- Interest at 4.311% from accident (8.12.14) to the date of assessment of damages (26.2.25), ie 122.5 months	$ 1,144,225.88
	Sub-total for Pre-Trial Loss with interest:	$ 3,744,259.12
POST-TRIAL LOSS
	Post-trial loss of earnings	$ 3,417,876
	Loss of earning capacity	$ 36,000
	Loss of society	$ 0
	Cost of future medical treatment
	- Occupational therapy	$ 73,200
	- Physiotherapy	$ 108,800
	Cost of accommodation needs	$ 4,565,378
	Need of technical aids, assistive devices and consumables:
	- Adaptive equipment:	$ 820,771.87
	- Consumables required:	$ 658,554.48
	Community nursing	$ 560,078.4
	Post-trial costs of care and attention	$ 2,991,415
	Cost of transportation needs	$ 530,880
	Membership of self-help organisations	$ 44,240
	Cost of social needs	$ 265,440
	Need for air-conditioning, dehumidifier, heaters:	$ 131,208.84
	Neurological treatment recommended by 2 neurological experts	$ 90,692
	Psychology / counselling treatment recommended by psychiatric experts	$ 33,300
	Urological treatment recommended by urologist	$ 44,240
	Extra cost of holidays / social activities	$ 0
	Cost of future surgery	$ 0
	Sub-total for Post-Trial Loss:	$ 14,372,074.59
	Total:	$ 19,980,333.71
	Less EC payment:	$ 2,173,644.75
	Net total:	$ 17,806,688.96

132.Hence, P seeks a judgment for $19,980,333.71 less EC payment. The net judgment sum would be $17,806,688.96 plus costs.

133.I agree with P’s assessment as set out above and find the sum of $17,806,688.96 as a reasonable amount to represent the damages suffered by P resulting from the Accident in this case.

H. DISPOSAL & ORDER

134.As the difference in the sum sought by P and the sum agreed by D4 is at $6,688.96 only; and given the fact that Mr Kwok on behalf P has agreed and accepted that slightly reduced amount, I would enter judgment in the sum of $17,800,000.00 plus costs in this case.

135.Both Mr Kwok and Mr Chan have agreed that, upon delivery of judgment on the amount of quantum, the parties will address the Court on further directions, including the issue of costs by way of further written directions.

136.I therefore direct the parties to lodge a short agreed written submissions on the proposed further directions to be dealt with by the Court within 7 days after the handing down of this judgment. The Court will then deal with all outstanding directions and orders, including the issue of costs for the assessment of damages, by way of paper disposal.

137.Lastly, I would like to commend counsel on both sides (and their instructing solicitors) for their very sensible and practical approach in resolving this matter in a most efficient and cost-effective manner. I would also like to thank Mr Kwok for preparing the very helpful and comprehensive written submissions for P which has made my task in assessing the damages in this case much easier.

Mr Tim Kwok, instructed by Lee & So, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the plaintiff

Messrs Liu, Chan & Lam acting for the Joint and Several Provisional Liquidators of the 1^st defendant, did not appear

The 2^nd defendant was not represented and did not appear

The 3^rd defendant ceased to be a party in this case since 4 July 2023 and did not appear

Mr Daniel KK Chan, instructed by Clyde & Co., for the 4^th defendant