Secretary for Justice v. Chu Chi Ho

DCCJ 5376/2020

[2025] HKDC 815

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 5376 OF 2020

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Introduction

1.This is the hearing for assessment of damages of the Plaintiff’s claim for the outstanding rent and mesne profits totalling HK$606,095.74 arising out of the Defendant's occupation of his assigned departmental quarters at a flat in Block 1 of Wong Tai Sin Disciplined Services Quarters (“the Premises”).

2.The Plaintiff does not pursue any pre-judgment interest on the outstanding rent and mesne profits in respect of the Premises.

3.The Plaintiff commenced these proceedings on 7 October 2020. In the Acknowledgment of Service, the Defendant indicated he would not contest. Interlocutory Judgment was entered against the Defendant on 11 March 2021.

4.The Defendant was absent at the hearing on 9 May 2025. Having read the affirmations of service filed in late April and early May 2025, I was satisfied that notice of assessment hearing had been duly given to the Defendant prior to the hearing. It was the Defendant’s election not to attend the assessment hearing. I proceeded with the assessment of damages in the absence of him.

The Plaintiff’s case

5.The Defendant was employed as a police officer and was allocated departmental quarters at the Premises. The Defendant occupied the Premises from 12 October 2010, until he eventually vacated from it on 16 November 2020.

6.At all the material times, the Defendant was subjected to the terms of, inter alia, the Police General Orders (“PGO”), the Civil Service Regulations (“CSR”), and the Force Procedures Manual (“FPM”).

7.Under the relevant terms, in gist, the Defendant is required to (i) personally live in the Premises as his full time residence, (ii) pay rent in accordance with CSR (“CSR Rent”), and (iii) in the event for non-compliance, pay or refund the Government an appropriate sum to be determined by Secretary for the Civil Service (ie damages equivalent to market rent of quarters as recommended by the Government Property Administrator (“GPA”). In addition, a police officer loses eligibility to occupy a department quarter permanently upon commencement of his terminal leave. He is also required to vacate the quarter within one month of the termination of his active service.

8.The Defendant signed the Undertaking dated 12 August 2010 for the purpose of being allocated the Premises. Put simply, the effect is that: if he breaches PGO, CSR, and/or FPM, he has to vacate the Premises and pay market rent for unauthorised occupation.

9.The Defendant was convicted of the offence of misconduct in public office in DCCC 331/2015 on 14 January 2016 and sentenced to 20-month-imprisonment on 21 January 2016. His appeal was dismissed on 3 August 2017 by the Court of Appeal. As such, the Defendant remained in prison until 21 February 2017. During this period, his housing benefit was suspended due to non-compliance with the live-in requirement. He was required to pay for the market rent of the Premises from 14 January 2016 to 21 February 2017. The Defendant only settled the rent up to 31 December 2016. Hence, the Plaintiff claims for the rent since 1 January 2017 to 21 February 2017 (“the 1^st period”).

10.The Defendant was released from prison on 22 February 2017, under the relevant policy, he became again entitled to the housing benefit and CSR Rent for a short period time until his formal dismissal and termination on 29 March 2018 from service. At this point, having been terminated, obviously, he ceased to be eligible for occupation of the Premises. He was required to vacate the Premises on or before 28 April 2018. But, the Defendant failed to do so, nor did he pay for the CSR Rent for the period from 22 February 2017 to 28 April 2018 (“the 2^nd period”).

11.The Defendant, despite repeated demands, failed to surrender vacant possession by 28 April 2018 as required. It was only until 16 November 2020, he delivered vacant possession of the Premises. The Plaintiff is now claiming for mesne profits for the period from 29 April 2018 to 16 November 2020 (“the 3^rd period”).

12.In light of the above, the Plaintiff seeks a total sum of HK$606,095.74 being the outstanding rents and mesne profits for the 3 said periods against the Defendant.

The Evidence

13.In the present hearing, the Plaintiff called 1 witness Ms Yeung Hoi Ling who is duly authorised by the Commissioner of Police to conduct the present case. She produced reference materials such as the Police Pay Scale of the relevant periods for the purpose of calculating the CSR Rent, valuation report prepared by the GPA showing detailed valuation in various years, and other useful tables. Her testimony was not subject to any challenge from the Defendant who had adduced no documentary evidence and witness evidence for the purpose of assessment of damages and was absent during the hearing. I accept Ms Yeung’s evidence.

Outstanding Rent for the 1^st period

14.In Ms Yeung’s witness statement, it is specifically pointed out the Defendant had not made any part payment, nor did he settle the outstanding sums by way of deduction of salary or pension.

15.Ms Yeung went on to explain that the monthly rate of market rent for the 1^st period is at HK$15,900, with reference to memos from the GPA, and arrive at the figure HK$27,825 being the amount payable by the Defendant. I find the methodology and calculations adopted by Ms Yeung reasonable and allow it in full to be recoverable from the Defendant.

Outstanding CSR Rent for the 2^nd period

16.For the period where the Defendant had been released from prison (before his formal dismissal and termination), Ms Yeung referred this Court’s attention to a table of police pay scale and highlighted the Defendant’s salary was at point 20 at the material times which required him to pay CSR Rent at 7.5% of his monthly salary. She assisted the Court by summarising the CSR rent as follows:

Periods	Monthly rate of CSR Rent	Amount payable
22 February 2017 – 31 March 2017	HK$2,758.88	HK$3,448.6
1 April 2017 – 31 March 2018	HK$2,839.88	HK$34,078.56
1 April 2018 – 28 April 2018	HK$2,968.13	HK$2,770.25
		HK$40,297.41

17.I find the amount claimed fair and hence allow the total sum of HK$40,297.41 under the 2^nd period in full.

Mesne Profits for the 3^rd period

18.Multiple letters were being sent by the Commissioner of Police and the Department of Justice from April 2018 to October 2020 requesting the Defendant to vacate the Premises and settle the outstanding rents and mesne profits. For the unauthorised occupation after termination, Ms Yeung explained the monthly rate of market rent should be at HK$17,600. Hence, for the period from 29 April 2018 to 16 November 2020, the Plaintiff seeks HK$537,973.33. I accept this figure and allow the entirety to be recoverable from the Defendant.

Conclusion

19.The Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant the following:

Rent for the 1st period:	HK$27,825
Rent for the 2nd period:	HK$40,297.41
Mesne profits for the 3rd period:	HK$537,973.33
	______________
TOTAL:	HK$606,095.74

20.I order that the Defendant do pay the sum of HK$606,095.74 to the Plaintiff. As to interest, the Plaintiff only asks for interest from the date of judgment (assessment) until full payment by the Defendant at judgment rate. I so order.

21.Costs should follow the event in the present case. Having considered the Statement of Costs, I order the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs, summarily assessed at HK$69,470.60.

Mr Thomas Li, Government Counsel of Department of Justice, for the Plaintiff

The Defendant was not represented and did not appear