Wong Hung Tan Thomas v. Regent Engineering Company Ltd (Formerly Known As Univic Building Contractors Ltd) and Another
Read the full judgment text of DCPI 1673/2023 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 8 April 2025.
1. This is the trial of the claim by the Plaintiff Mr Wong Hung Tan Thomas (“ P ”) for damages for personal injuries arising out of an accident at work allegedly occurred to him on 14 July 2020 (“ Accident ”) when working on a construction site at Renaissance College, Ma On Shan (“ Site ”).
Cites 13 cases
|
DCPI 1673/2023 [2025] HKDC 581 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 1673 OF 2023 --------------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------------
--------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT --------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION 1.This is the trial of the claim by the Plaintiff Mr Wong Hung Tan Thomas (“P”) for damages for personal injuries arising out of an accident at work allegedly occurred to him on 14 July 2020 (“Accident”) when working on a construction site at Renaissance College, Ma On Shan (“Site”). 2.It is admitted that P was employed by the 1st Defendant who was a sub-contractor of the 2nd Defendant (respectively “D1” and “D2”, collectively “Ds”). 3.Both liability and quantum are in issue. 4.Ds were all along legally represented by Messrs S K Wong & Co in these proceedings until 7 March 2025 when the solicitors filed a Summons under O 67 r 6 of the Rules of the District Court (Cap 336H)(“RDC”) for ceasing to act. The application was heard, and the order granted, by this Court on the morning of and immediately before commencement of trial. 5.Ds therefore act in person at trial. They did not lodge or make any Opening or Closing Submissions. 6.The related employees’ compensation action (DCEC 1210/2022) arising out of the Accident was by an order dated 31 December 2024 stayed pending conclusion of these proceedings. LIABIITY The Accident 7.There is no dispute that on 14 July 2020 at around 2:30 p.m. P was in the course of work assigned to manually lift a metal drain cover (“Cover”) on the Site to facilitate sewage inspection work. P’s claim is that he sprained his low back and hip in the course of lifting and replacing the heavy Cover as a result of the unsafe system of work provided by Ds. P’s Case/ Evidence 8.P’s case on the circumstances of the Accident as pleaded in the Statement of Claim[1] filed on 30 May 2023 (“SOC”) and elaborated in his witness statement filed on 9 October 2024 is as follows:-
9.P’s case is that the Cover was too heavy for him to manually handle and it was unsafe for him to be assigned with the lifting task in the circumstances. Ds are negligent and in breach of their statutory duties, employer’s duty and/or implied terms of contract of employment in assigning P to carry out the heavy manual lifting work in the circumstances. He pleads and relies on, inter alia, the following particulars of negligence against Ds[2]:-
10.P gave evidence during cross-examination at trial how he had done the lifting work with 2 school janitors who were summoned on the spot to help him, as it was impossible for him to handle the heavy lifting alone. He felt pain in his low back with a pulling sensation when lifting the heavy Cover. He did inform the foreman Ah Chung on the day of the Accident after the lifting work that he had pulled his low back (“扯一扯親條腰”) and felt a bit painful. He had thought at that time that it was nothing serious and did not pay much attention to it. 11.The following morning the pain in the low back and near the tailbone became worse. P thought it would gradually subside and went to work. The pain got even worse and spread to the left pelvic area and calf, with numbness in the leg, after he had worked in the following 3 to 4 days. 12.When P was on his way to work on the morning of 20 July 2020 the pain became so bad that he could not even walk to the Site after alighting from the bus. He called in and informed foreman Ah Chung that he could not come to work and had to go see a doctor. 13.He took a taxi to the Department of Accident and Emergency (“A&E”) of United Christian Hospital (“UCH”) to seek treatment. The A&E consultation notes of UCH dated 20 July 2020 record that P reported “IOD (injury on duty)…L buttock pain…L posterior leg pain after lifting metal drain cover ～ 6 days ago…stretching pain afterwards…pain worse…mild limping gait…”[3]. 14.P reported the Accident to D1 and attended the latter’s office to give a statement. A statement dated 21 July 2020 prepared by D1 and signed by P records the Accident more or less consistent with P’s pleaded case herein, though P states in the statement “…(I was) uncertain of the date of injury…can ask foreman Ah Chung (who knew about it)…”. Ds’ Case/ Evidence 15.Ds’ pleaded case[4] as supported by the evidence of their witness Lau Crystal Suet Ying (“Lau”), HR Manager of D2, is as follows:-
16.Lau confirmed in her evidence that the 2 school janitors were not Ds’ employees, and that they were summoned on the spot for ad hoc assistance to help P lift the Cover. Ds had no knowledge as to whether they had any training, instructions or experience for the lifting work. Analysis 17.P’s evidence on the Accident was firm and not challenged. He denies that Albert Suen was there, and that there were only 2 school janitors helping him in lifting the Cover at the time of the Accident. 18.On the other hand, Lau’s evidence regarding Albert Suen’s assistance in the lifting work turns out to be hearsay evidence that she obtained from her “investigation”, which in fact was no more than “reading the records”. She did not even make enquiry with Albert Suen or the foreman Ah Chung (who according to Ds were present on the Site) of the circumstances of the Accident in light of P’s different account of the Accident. 19.Ds’ pleaded case of the small size of 811 mm2 of the drainage cover is wholly unreasonable and defies commonsense. They have not adduced evidence to clarify or correct this obvious mistake, or challenge P’s case on the much larger size and heavy weight of the Cover. 20.I accept P’s evidence on the occurrence and circumstances of the Accident, supported by contemporaneous medical records and recorded in his statement provided to D1 on 21 July 2020, and not validly challenged. 21.P’s statement given to D1 on 21 July 2020 serves as concrete proof that he had reported the injury at work Accident to his foreman/ employer, though he was not certain then of the exact date of the Accident. Ds’ case of non-occurrence of the Accident due to P’s late report of the Accident to the Labour Department in early 2021 is contradicted by D1’s own record and wholly unreasonable, and is rejected. 22.Ds have not adduced any evidence to challenge P’s case that no supervision, work instruction or training were provided to him regarding lifting of heavy drainage covers. Lau’s evidence on P’s holding of Construction Worker’s Registration Card and basic general training in construction work would not absolve Ds’ liability and duty being the employer and principal contractor with regard to the provision of work instruction and safety training to P to render the work of heavy lifting assigned to P reasonably safe. 23.There is no evidence that the 2 school janitors, not being Ds’ employees and were summoned on the spot for manual assistance, had any training, received any guidelines or work instructions, or had experience in heavy lifting duties. 24.D1, being the employer, owes a duty to its workers including P to take reasonable care, steps and precautions and to ensure his safety in the performance of his work. The employer’s duty of care towards its employees cannot be delegated. 25.In considering liability, an important issue would be whether it was reasonably safe for P to handle the heavy Cover at the time of the Accident, even with the ad hoc assistance of 2 school janitors (who were likely neither trained nor experienced for the work). The court shows little tolerance with industrial accidents in which the employees were found to be required to handle exceptionally strenuous or heavy manual tasks. 26.Reference is made to the case of Lai Wah Wai v Castco Testing Centre Ltd [1996] 2 HKC 44: The construction worker plaintiff also sustained back injuries when he lifted some moulds and concrete weighing about 21 to 24 kg. Cheung J. (as he then was) found that the defendant employer was 100% liable for the accident for the following reasons: the weight was simply too heavy to be lifted by the plaintiff alone; the defendant had not ensured that the workers would not lift or were prohibited from lifting the moulds with the concrete and the defendant had not instructed the workers as to the safe posture in lifting of the moulds. According to the expert evidence adduced in that case, the safe limit for lifting forces is around 12 kg for general application, around 23-30 kg for well trained individuals lifting in well designed lifting circumstances and 50-55 kg as the absolute maximum for well trained, specially selected individuals lifting in ideal circumstances. In that case, the safety limit of the weight to be handled by one person adopting the posture of bending down and lifting the load off the ground was found to be about 20 kg. 27.I have also considered the authorities relied on by P’s counsel Mr Jonathan Tsang in which liability was established against the employer and principal contractors for failing to provide appropriate equipment, additional manual assistance, sufficient training or supervision to ensure a safe system of work, or render the heavy manual lifting work (of weights of a range of 30-50kg) assigned to the injured plaintiffs safe: Liu Shui Bik v Countfortune Ltd & Anor HCPI 60/2008 (Saunders J; 17 March 2010); Mohammad Waheed Khan v Rising Sun Transportation Co Ltd HCPI 241/2010 (Recorder A Ho, SC; 10 December 2012); and Tamang Udas v Global Sunny Engineering Ltd & Anor HCPI 732/2011 (DHCJ Woo; 7 January 2013). 28.On P’s account of the Accident, I find the weight lifting task undertaken by P, by spreading his arms across the corner of the Cover and lifting about half of its weight of above 60 kg from one corner, to be too heavy and unsafe. The heavy lifting task should at least require additional competent and trained manual assistance. 29.I have no difficulty coming to the conclusion that no reasonably safe system of work was implemented by Ds to ensure the proper and safe performance of the heavy manual lifting task of the Cover by P, especially where no work instructions, safety training or sufficient competent manual assistance were provided. 30.D1 has acted in breach of its non-delegable duty as the employer owed to P as sued. I find it liable for causing the Accident. 31.D2 being the principal contractor should have overall management and control of the works, including those of its sub-contractors. It also owed a duty of care to the workers working on the Site with regard to the provision of a safe system of work. 32.Following from the above analysis, D2 has also acted in breach of that duty and is found jointly and severally liable with D1. Contributory Negligence 33.Ds plead contributory negligence against P for causing or contributing to the Accident. 34.In order to establish such failure and argue contributory negligence on the part of P, the burden is on Ds to prove that P had unreasonably done or omitted to do some act in the circumstances to such an extent that he could be said to have failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety. 35.Ds have pleaded in the Defence particulars of contributory negligence against P for (i) failing to size up the weight of the Cover and thus consider whether his physical strength was adequate to lift it up; (ii) failing to request for further mechanical aid and/or protective devices if he considered his physical strength inadequate, etc.[5] 36.Such pleas are in my view wholly inappropriate in that they have in effect delegated onto the employee the duty to devise a safe system of work, the provision of which should no doubt be part of the employer’s non-delegable duty. A humble employee in the position of P would have no alternative but to follow the (unsafe) work system provided by the employer in those circumstances. See the judgment of Suffiad J in Yeung Lok Sze v Hong Yip Service Company Limited HCPI 12/2007: The court rejected the defence argument that the plaintiff was negligent in failing to seek assistance to hold steady the ladder from the other worker present in the clubhouse at the time of the accident, for allowing such a proposition would be effectively to allow the defendant employer to delegate its non-delegable duty to the plaintiff employee. 37.In any event, Ds have not adduced any evidence to show that P had unreasonably done or omitted to do some act that could be said to be consciously accepting a risk of injury. Interestingly on the other hand, Ds’ case is that P, having previous experience in the lifting work, had maintained a proper lifting posture throughout lifting the Cover.[6] 38.No case of contributory negligence is made out on the evidence. Conclusion on Liability 39.I find 100% liability established in this action against D1 and D2 who are jointly and severally liable to P in this action. QUANTUM 40.P was aged 49 at the time of the Accident and is currently 54 years old. 41.His case is that as a result of the injuries sustained in the Accident, he has suffered and continues to suffer low back pain radiating to the left buttock and left posterior leg, such that he cannot resume his pre-accident driving or construction site general labour work. P’s Claim 42.P’s claim herein as pleaded in the Revised Statement of Damages filed on 1 March 2024 (“RSOD”), updated to the notional date of judgment (taken to be 12 September 2025), is summarised in his counsel Mr Tsang’s Opening Submissions as follows:-
43.Ds have not filed an Answer to the RSOD, nor raise any challenge to P’s evidence on quantum. 44.In his Closing Submissions, P’s counsel submits a reduced PSLA award in the upper end of the range of $200,000 to $250,000. 45.He also submits a much reduced alternative case on the claim of pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF up to May 2021 only in the net sum of $85,173.95 (after deducting earnings actually received by P during the post-Accident period from July 2020 to May 2021). This will bring the total claim to a substantially reduced sum of around $550,000 (plus interest). 46.This Court will consider all factual and medical evidence in coming to a reasonable and just quantification of P’s claim. Injuries, Treatment and Disabilities 47.When lifting the heavy Cover on the day of the Accident, P experienced a pulling pain at his low back. The pain got worse in the following few days and became unbearable. He attended the A&E of UCH to seek treatment on 20 July 2020. 48.Physical examination showed that P had a mild limping gait. X-ray of the lumbosacral spine showed loss of lumbar lordosis and decreased intravertebral space over L2/3. P was treated and discharged, and was prescribed with medications and granted 7 days sick leave. 49.The low back pain persisted. P sought treatment and was referred to the Orthopaedics and Traumatology Department of UCH, and later for physiotherapy and occupational therapy treatment. 50.He attended 21 sessions of physiotherapy at UCH for treatment of “left sciatica” during the period from 28 July 2020 to 28 December 2020. After treatment, P had reduced low back pain and reported 90% subjective improvement, with pain level decreased from 6/10 to 1/10. 51.P attended different government outpatient clinics and also sought help from bonesetter/ practitioner in Traditional Chinese Medicine (“TCM”) Ng Ping Nam for about 10 times from 8/2020 onwards. 52.Work Rehabilitation Assessment (“WRA”) conducted by the Occupational Therapy Department of UCH on 14 September 2020 shows that whilst P’s low back pain condition had improved upon treatment, he was assessed to be only marginally matched the job demands of medium physical strength requirement. He was recommended to resume his previous job as a “sewage pipe maintenance worker” or “construction labourer” with major duty modification. 53.On the other hand, medical report dated 12 May 2022 from Lam Tin Polyclinic records that by 18 September 2020, P claimed that the back pain had resolved though there was still left leg pain. 54.P’s low back pain condition deteriorated in early to mid-2022. He attended a 2nd course of occupational therapy at UCH and had functional rehabilitation treatment. He also sought further TCM treatment during May to August 2022. 55.The low back pain did not resolve but recur on and off. P sought pain relief treatment until September 2023. 56.P was assessed on 18 October 2022 by the Medical Assessment Board (“MAB”) to be suffering from 1.5% permanent loss of earning capacity (LEC) in respect of back and hip injuries, resulting in low back pain, back stiffness, right buttock and right hip pain for the purposes of the employees’ compensation claim as set out in a Certificate of Assessment (Form 7) dated 1 November 2022. The sick leaves granted from 20 July 2020 to 9 October 2020, except for one day on 2 October 2020, were endorsed by the MAB. Medical Expert Evidence 57.Dr Peter Ko, specialist in orthopaedics engaged by P as a solo expert, examined P on 4 July 2023. He commissioned an expert report dated 7 September 2023 pursuant to the examination. The expert report was ordered to be adduced in evidence at trial without calling Dr Ko for oral evidence. 58.Ds have elected not to adduce medical expert evidence. 59.During examination which took place around 3 years after the Accident, P reported persistent unresolved symptoms and disabilities allegedly resulted from the low back injuries sustained in the Accident as follows:-
60.Examination revealed nil objective abnormal findings and normal lower limbs sensation and power. Waddell’s simulation signs were grossly negative. 61.Dr Ko’s opinions on P’s injuries and effects of the resultant residual symptoms and disabilities are summarised as follows:-
Analysis of the Medical Evidence/ Work Capacity 62.The overall medical evidence supports a very mild low back sprain injury. P had attended intensive follow up treatment, physiotherapy and occupational therapy in the initial 5 to 6 months after the Accident and had long recovered with good functional capacity. Other than that, he did not require surgery or any active treatment. 63.Upon completion of physiotherapy treatment on 28 December 2020, he reportedly had attained subjective improvement of 90% leaving minimal residual pain of a pain scale of 1/10. 64.P’s evidence is that he was a professional driver by occupation and was so employed by D1 initially to drive and transport engineers to and from the airport construction site at monthly earnings of $26,000. He was assigned with general labourer’s duties since about a month before the Accident due to a shortage of manpower. 65.P had continued to work for a few days in general labour work on construction site immediately after the Accident until 20 July 2020. I consider it highly probable that the low back pain was not severe initially. 66.The back injury might have been aggravated due to exertion at work during those few days. P first sought treatment at the A&E of UCH on 20 July 2020. Sick leaves of around 2.5 months from 20 July 2020 up to 9 October 2020 were granted. 67.Upon treatment, P was able to resume work on 10 October 2020 immediately after expiry of the sick leave, though he was only assigned with light security guard duties on a construction site upon the treating doctors’ recommendation for light duty. He had continued to work in light duties until his employment with D1 was terminated on 4 February 2021. 68.P then worked as a taxi driver for about 10 months during the period from 4/2021 to 2/2022, and then from 10/2022 to 2/2023. He made reduced earnings of around $16,000 per month on average from taxi driving work. He quit driving taxi after 2/2023 allegedly due to aggravated low back pain and that he could not sit for long. 69.He then changed to work as a security guard as from 10 July 2023 and has remained in this job ever since. He made further reduced earnings of $13,951 per month. 70.I find P an honest witness who was frank about the speedy recovery from the back sprain injury. He was motivated to resume work and made no attempt to exaggerate his symptoms. By the time of the examination by Dr Ko, his only complaints were related to the on and off low back, right gluteal and hip pain with limitation in handling heavy weight. 71.Dr Ko opines the treatment and sick leaves granted appropriate and that he should not require further treatment. P should be able to resume his pre-accident work as a truck driver or a general labourer on construction site with probably only minimal to mild impairment of his work efficiency and effectiveness. 72.The overall medical evidence suggests that P had sustained a mild soft tissue low back sprain injury with minimal residual pain. He was able to resume at least light duty after a relatively short sick leave of 2.5 months. 73.In light of the overall medical evidence and P’s post-accident work, I would not place great reliance on the conclusions of the WRA conducted on 14 September 2020 in which P was assessed to be only marginally matched the medium physical strength requirement of his previous job as a “sewage pipe maintenance worker” or “construction labourer” with major duty modification. 74.The WRA was conducted within 2 months after the Accident, which was likely too early to represent P’s stabilised condition upon recovery. Also the paramedic’s conclusions stated in the WRA were understandably primarily based on the subjective complaints/ limitations of and examination results as demonstrated by P in the physical tests, but not objective medical findings. The test results would depend on P’s motivation and willingness to have full exertion in the tests. 75.P’s pre-accident work was all along driving (apart from the month immediately before the Accident). His own evidence is that he had been able to resume taxi driving work after the Accident for lengthy periods from 4/2021 to 2/2023. 76.There is however no medical evidence or pathology for the cause of the alleged deterioration of low back pain since early 2022, or that it was a direct result of the Accident, such that P could not continue with driving work. It is further noted that the left sciatica suffered in the initial 5 to 6 months had already subsided, but had changed to right buttock and hip pain by the time of MAB assessment and examination by Dr Ko after mid-2022. 77.The mild low back condition with left sciatica, which had mostly recovered in the initial 6 months according to the medical evidence, should continue to improve rather than deteriorate in early to mid-2022, some 1.5 to 2 years after the Accident. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support that the subsequent deterioration and residual right-sided pain and disabilities are caused by or related to the Accident. 78.For the purposes of assessment of common law damages in this action, I make the following findings:-
QUANTUM Pain Suffering and Loss of Amenities (“PSLA”) 79.I have indicated during trial that P’s pleaded claim of $350,000 for PSLA is inflated in view of the medical evidence of a mild soft tissue back sprain injury that had substantially recovered within the initial few months. 80.In his counsel’s Closing Submissions, P seeks a lower claim for damages for PSLA of $200,000 to $25,000, relying on the comparable judgment of Gurung Romi v Pizza Express Hong Kong Ltd [2023] HKCFI 3289. 81.The plaintiff in Gurung Romi (supra) suffered from back pain, supported by evidence of MRI findings of disc protrusion and impingement of nerve roots of the lumbar spine. There is no evidence of significant MRI findings in the present case. 82.I consider the mild soft tissue injuries suffered by the plaintiffs in the cases of Singh Satnam v Wong Chun Fung HCPI 786/2009; Chu Sio Iong v Cheung Ho Yin & Anor DCPI 580/2011; Pak Siu Hin Simon v J V Fitness Ltd HCPI 574/2014; Yu Hiu Kit Kathy v LSG Lufthansa Service HK Ltd HCPI 920/2013 and Chu Kam Hung v Shing Lee (Meat Supplies) Hong Ltd HCPI 802/2013 to be better comparables of P’s case herein. 83.Taking into account inflation since the dates of these cited judgments, an appropriate range for PSLA should in my view lie within $150,000 to $200,000. 84.I accept that the totality of P’s injuries and disabilities would justify an award for PSLA of $200,000. Pre-Trial Loss of Earnings and MPF Benefits 85.P’s case is that prior to working for D1, he had been working as a driver or pier checker (as reported to Dr Ko during medical examination). He was employed by D1 since 15 November 2019 as a truck driver though in the month before the Accident he was assigned with construction site general labour work due to manpower shortage. 86.P has not adduced any evidence on his previous earnings prior to his employment with D1. According to the wage records and List of Earnings filed on 28 June 2023 in the related employees’ compensation action, during his employment with D1, P worked for 21 to 26 days in a month at a daily wage of $1,000. His total monthly earnings (before deduction of MPF contributions) were $167,000 during the 7 full months of employment from 12/2019 to 6/2020, i.e. $23,857 per month on average, rounded up to about $24,000. 87.P’s evidence is that he had received total earnings of $172,881.95 when he continued to work for D1 (albeit in light duties) during the post-Accident period between July 2020 and 4 February 2021 before his employment was terminated. Thereafter he had worked as a taxi driver earning about $16,000 per month from April 2021 to February 2022. 88.Following from this Court’s findings set out in §78 above, I quantify pre-trial loss of earnings suffered by P on the assumptions that:-
89.Pre-trial loss of earnings is quantified during the period of July 2020 to December 2021 as follows:-
90.The loss of earnings should carry 5% loss of MPF benefits representing employer’s contributions to MPF as follows:-
91.Total pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF benefits is thus quantified at $120,874. Future Loss of Earnings/ Loss of Earning Capacity 92.On the basis of my quantification herein, P should be able to resume his pre-accident work in driving or construction site general labour work after end-2021. He would not suffer further loss of earnings, nor post-trial loss of earnings on the evidence of SJE Dr Ko. 93.However, in view of the mildly impaired work capacity by reason of the residual low back pain and disabilities as agreed by Dr Ko, I accept that P will suffer handicap and would be disadvantaged in the labour market. His condition may be aggravated upon exertion at work and he may require rests upon prolonged driving or intermittent leave absence from work. His work efficiency will be reduced and he would be prone to have minor injuries and rendered off work. An award under this head would be appropriate. (Frost v Palmer [1993] PIQR Q14) 94.The usual awards for loss of earning capacity range between $60,000 to $120,000 for mild to moderately serious injuries depending on the nature and extent of the injuries, personal circumstances of the injured worker, strenuousness of the alternative work, etc. 95.P is currently 54 years old. I consider an award for loss of earning capacity representing about 6 to 8 months of the earnings of a taxi driver would be appropriate. A provision of $125,000 would in my view be reasonable, taking into account the fact that no further loss of earnings is allowed beyond 12/2021. Other Special Damages/ Misc Expenses 96.P’s claim for reimbursement of medical expenses in the sum of $8,565 is supported by receipts and is allowed. The claim for travelling expenses of $3,000, though without receipt in support, is reasonably modest and is allowed. P had undoubtedly incurred and paid for travelling expenses in attending the intensive follow up. 97.As for the tonic food claim of $5,000, it is a bare plea not supported by any evidence or receipts of purchase. No details have been provided as to what was purchased or consumed, or whether the tonic food was required upon medical advice or that they would assist recovery from the injuries sustained in the Accident (Kings Light Industrial Ltd v Lo Wai Keung [1994] 3 HKC 391 at §§44-50). I do not consider it appropriate to allow the claim. 98.I therefore make an award of $11,565 for reimbursement of medical and travelling expenses incurred. Interest 99.Interest on PSLA is assessed at the usual rate of 2% p.a. from the date of the writ of summons to the date of judgment, thereafter at judgment rate until payment. 100.Interest on all pre-trial special damages is assessed at half of the judgment rate from the date of the Accident to the date of judgment, thereafter at judgment rate until payment. Summary of Award 101.I summarise the award of P’s claims for common law damages as follows:-
102.P’s total claim herein is thus assessed at $457,439 (plus interest). 103.Giving credit for the sick leave advance payments received by P from D1, agreed in the total sum of $51,200, the nett award of damages for personal injuries is thus $406,239 (plus interest). Order 104.I therefore make an order that D1 and D2 do pay damages to P in the sum of $406,239 plus interest. 105.Costs should follow the event. I make an order nisi that D1 and D2 should pay P the costs of this action, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed. 106.P’s own costs should be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations. 107.In the absence of application from the parties to vary this costs order within 14 days, the costs order nisi will become absolute. 108.Lastly, I thank P’s counsel Mr Tsang for his assistance.
Mr Jonathan Tsang, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid and instructed by Messrs Szwina Pang, Edward Li & Co., for the Plaintiff The 1st to 2nd Defendants, appeared in person | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under DCPI 1673/2023