Fab4 Ltd Trading As Lucale v. Sing Yu Decoration Engineering Company Ltd

DCCJ 1033/2024

[2025] HKDC 2001

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1033 OF 2024

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

A.  Introduction

1.This is an assessment of damages.

2.The Plaintiff (“P”) is represented by counsel, Ms. Jennifer Tse. The Defendant (“D”) is absent. To date, D has been absent throughout the proceedings.

B.  Proceeding in D’s absence

3.D’s old registered address is at Room 703, Kin Sang Industrial Building, 147 Wai Yip Street, Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon (“Old Address”). This is according to a company search dated 9 November 2023. D’s new registered address is at Unit 2807, 28F, Peninsular Tower, 538 Castle Peak Road, Lai Chi Kok, Kowloon (“New Address”). This is according to a company search dated 9 August 2024.

4.I observe that P had sent by post a “Notice of Appointment” to both the Old Address and the New Address at least 7 days before the attendance of the appointment at D’s New Address. I refer to §§14-15 of the affirmation of Tsoi Kwai Lok dated 20 February 2025. In the premise, I consider that the requirement under O.37, r.1(1) of the District Court Rules, Cap 336H (“DCR”) has been met.

5.As a side note, I observe that a “Notice of Trial [Re: Assessment of Damages]” dated 3 September 2025 is only addressed to D’s Old Address. This appears to be inadvertence.

6.But in any event, I consider that D has been notified of today’s hearing.

(a)  First, P’s solicitors have sent by post the Court’s order setting down this assessment of damages dated 28 August 2025 to both the Old Address and the New Address on 10 September 2025. I refer to the 5^th Affirmation of Man Kui Shing dated 16 September 2025 at §§2-4.

(b)  Second, P’s solicitors have sent by post the Draft Hearing Bundle Indices to both the Old Address and the New Address on 9 October 2025. I refer to the 6^th Affirmation of Man Kui Shing dated 18 November 2025 at §2.

(c)  Third, P’s solicitors have also sent the hearing bundle and P’s counsel submissions to both the Old Address and the New Address on 7 November 2025. I refer to 6^th Affirmation of Man Kui Shing dated 18 November 2025 at §3.

7.Standing back, I am satisfied to proceed in D’s absence.

C.  Background

8.P is a HK company. P runs a high-end Italian restaurant in Hong Kong. D is a HK company. D runs a business of interior decoration.

9.P and D entered into an initial agreement on or about 28 October 2022 whereby P would pay D for the supply of goods and renovation services (“Initial Agreement”).

10.Subsequently, D provided the following further quotations:-

(a)  Additional Quotation 6022 dated 31 October 2022 (“Additional Quotation 1”) to supply further goods and services for HK$26,000;

(b)  Additional Quotation 6023 dated 23 November 2022 (“Additional Quotation 2”) to supply further goods and services for HK$68,790;

(c)  Additional Quotation 6024 dated 10 January 2023 (“Additional Quotation 3”) to supply further services for HK$13,500;

(d)  Additional Quotation 6024 dated 10 January (“Additional Quotation 4”) to supply further services for HK$4,000;

(e)  Additional Quotation 6028 (“Additional Quotation 5”) to supply further services for HK$17,160 (which had been revised given P’s complaint of unsatisfactory work).

(collectively, the “Additional Quotations”)

11.D has provided some goods and/or renovation services. However, P claims that the same was unsatisfactory and/or late.

D.  P’s Case

12.P has made a number of claims in her statement of claim dated 23 February 2024 (“P’s SOC”):-

(a)  P claims breach of the express terms in the Initial Agreement and the Additional Quotations.

(b)  Further or alternatively, P also claims D has breached a series of implied terms in the Initial Agreement and the Additional Quotations. That is, (i) to provide goods that are of merchantable quality, reasonably fit for purpose and/or corresponds with description, and/or (ii) to provide services that are carried out with reasonable care and skill.

(c)  Further or alternatively, P claims D has breached its duty of care (negligence).

13.For avoidance of doubt, P submits that:-

(a)  Quotation 3 and Quotation 4 are separate (despite bearing the same date and reference number).

(b)  The sums and work outlined in the Initial Agreement and the Additional Quotations were orally agreed between the parties.

(c)  P has paid D a total of HK$375,500. In particular, a sum of HK$168,000 on 16 December 2022 for 1^st payment under the Initial Agreement, a sum of HK$13,500 on 10 January 2023 for payment of Additional Quotation 3, and a sum of HK$194,000 on 16 January 2023 for the 2^nd payment under the Initial Agreement and Quotation 1.

(d)  P has obtained judgment for the sum of HK$11,440 on 19 August 2024 (with further damages to be assessed in the current proceedings). P confirms none of the items claimed in this assessment of damages overlaps with the HK$11,440.

14.P submits that there is no dispute in regards to the underlying facts.

15.Ms Tse has refined P’s claim for assessment of damages in her written skeleton. In presenting her claim, Ms Tse has combined the Initial Agreement and Additional Quotations and labelled them as “Master Agreement”. She submits that P is now claiming for a total sum of HK$806,507.80 as follows:-

(a)  Rectification and installation of lighting for HK$11,365;

(b)  Rectification work for floor epoxy, tiles and stair nosing for HK$139,600;

(c)  Replacement assembled chairs, bar stools, bench seating for HK$41,100;

(d)  Replacement natural marble table for HK$24,000;

(e)  Replacement artwork for HK$10,442.80;

(f)  Replacement laying graphic wallpaper for HK$3,500;

(g)  Rectification of uneven paint for HK$25,000;

(h)  Repair of water taps and pipe fixture for HK$800;

(i)  Rewiring signal and POS system for HK$5,000;

(j)  Damages for lost of sales for a total of 9 days for being HK$435,600. Further or alternatively, damages for loss of wages for 9 days payable to P’s staff being HK$78,100; and

(k)  Reimbursement of surveyor fee for HK$32,000.

16.P has tendered 1 factual witness Mr Alessandro Angelini (“Mr Angelini”) and 1 expert witness Mr Wesley Cheung (“Mr Cheung”). They have adopted their witness statement dated 12 June 2025 and expert report dated 24 August 2023 respectively.

E.  Legal Principles

17.In assessing damages for breach of contract, a plaintiff is entitled to be placed, so far as money can do, in the same position as if a contract had been performed provided that all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate their loss. A plaintiff’s foreseeable and consequential losses would recoverable. See for e.g. in Chan Yee Tak Rachel v DSM Interior Design Ltd [2023] HKCFI 311 at §§14 and 15 (per Master D Ho).

18.The quantum of damages may be calculated by reference to the additional cost incurred in engaging a new contractor unless the new work has been substantially varied: see Prime View Inc. Ltd v Asian Richly Ltd HCA 1672/2015 (unrep. 28 September 2017), §§15 – 18 (per Master M Wong – as she then was).

19.An expert’s fees is compensatable: see Lam Sik Heung v Perdita Siu Yuet Kwan DCCJ 2424/2009 (unrep. 17 October 2012), §10 (per DDJ Mok – as she then was).

20.On default of filing a defence, a defendant is deemed to have admitted the plaintiff’s case as pleaded: see Yang Yihe v Qiu Yuewen [2023] HKCFI 2166, §22 (per DHCJ KC Chan – as he then was).

F.  Analysis

21.I consider that P has made out its claim for breach of contract and/or breach of duty of care.

Rectification and installation of lighting

22.P has actually spent HK$11,365 on rectification and installation of lighting.

23.P claims that D had not installed bulkhead and downlight lighting at all. Further, the installed lighting was defective and/or incompatible.

24.I accept P’s claim that it could not run its restaurant without proper lighting. P’s expert also assessed the rectification and installation of lighting to be HK$11,365.

25.I consider the same to be fair and reasonable. I award the same in full.

Rectification work for floor epoxy, tiles and stair nosing

26.P has actually spent HK$139,600 on the rectification of floor epoxy, tiles and stair nosing.

27.P claims that the work provided by D is defective and sub-standard. The floor epoxy and tiles were chipped and broken with noticeable gaps. There was no stair nosing which posed safety risk.

28.The expert assessed the rectification costs at HK$118,000. I shall adopt the expert’s assessed rectification cost at HK$118,000.

Replacement assembled chairs, bar stools, bench seating

29.P has actually spent HK$41,100 on replacing the assembled chairs, bar stools, and bench seating.

30.P claims that the assembled chairs were defective, unsafe, of low quality, unfit, and broke when customers sat on them.

31.The expert assessed the replacement cost at HK$37,000. P has confirmed that the original assembled chairs, bar stools and bench seating were all replaced. I shall adopt the expert’s assessed cost at HK$37,000.

Replacement natural marble table

32.P claims that the original “marble” table provided by D was actually made of reconstituted stone material. The same was also defective.

33.The expert assessed the replacement cost as HK$30,000. However, P is only claiming the actual consideration price, namely, HK$24,000. I shall award this in full.

Replacement pattern board logo / artwork

34.P has actually spent HK$10,442.80 on purchasing artwork. The Initial Agreement is for hand drawn art wall or special pattern board. The expert did not assess this item.

35.I am not minded to award any sum for P’s purchase of artwork.

Replacement/Rectification laying graphic wallpaper

36.P claims that D did not provide any laying of graphic wallpaper. P is claiming for the amount it would spend on replacement/rectification for laying graphic wallpaper. The expert assessed this cost at HK$3,500. I would allow the same in full.

Rectification of uneven paint

37.P claims the painting was uneven and poor, and the ceiling pipes were not painted. The painting was sub-standard.

38.P is claiming for the amount it would spend on the rectification of uneven paint. The expert assessed this amount as HK$25,000. I would allow the same in full.

Repair of water taps and pipe fixture

39.P claims D’s defective work in replacing the sink low cabinet and water tap caused water leakage and malfunctioning taps some 4 hours of re-opening. P appears to be unable to recall the amount it had spent on such water taps and pipe fixtures. The expert assessed this at HK$800. There is no amount provided by P. I am not minded to award this sum.

Rewiring signal and POS system

40.P actually spent HK$5,000 on rewiring and POS system.

41.P claims that the wiring had been wrongfully cut by D’s worker and technician was required to repair the same. The POS system did not function.

42.The expert assessed this at HK$5,000. I am minded to allow the same in full.

Damages for lost sales and wages

43.P claims that a total delay of 9 days was caused by D’s failure to finish on time. P claims that the final completion date would be “on or about 14 February”. The premises was only handed back to P on 21 February 2023 (being a delay of around 6 days).

44.I am not prepared to accept P’s contention based on the evidence before me. Rather, I shall adopt the amount of 3 days for which the restaurant had to be closed (for remedial works to complete) from 28 March 2023 to 30 March 2023.

45.Upon reflection, I decline to assess the damages at the “daily sales” rate. The evidence is for this is unclear which I do not accept. In this regard, P has not provided any verified accounting statements – for e.g. audited financial statements, etc. It is also unclear whether such “daily sales” are net of expenses.

46.I shall adopt P’s alternative basis for wasted wages of 3 days paid to its 9 staff. The 9 staff have average daily wages of being:-

(a)  Staff 1 – average daily wage of HK$1,052.05

(b)  Staff 2 – average daily wage of HK$854.79

(c)  Staff 3 – average daily wage of HK$1,150.68

(d)  Staff 4 – average daily wage of HK$986.30

(e)  Staff 5- average daily wage of HK$624.66

(f)  Staff 6 – average daily wage of HK$887.67

(g)  Staff 7 – average daily wage of HK$821.92

(h)  Staff 8 – average daily wage of HK$1,249.32

(i)  Staff 9 – average daily wage of HK$690.41

47.As such, this amount is 3 days x (HK$1,052.05 + HK$854.79 + HK$1,150.68 + HK$986.30 + HK$624.66 + HK$887.67 + HK$821.92 + HK$1,249.32 + HK$690.41) = HK$24,953.40.

Reimbursement of surveyor fee

48.P claims for the reimbursement of surveyor fees. The same has been actually paid. I shall allow the same in full.

49.The above amounts which I have allowed totals: HK$280,818.40 (being HK$11,365 + HK$118,000 + HK$37,000 + HK$24,000 + HK$3,500 + HK$25,000 + HK$5,000 + HK$24,953.40 + HK$32,000).

50.Lastly, I should mention that I have had reference to Mr Angelini’s witness statement and Mr Cheung’s expert report which are in general support of the above. I have found the evidence and explanations therein to be helpful.

51.I thank counsel for her able assistance.

COSTS

52.Costs would follow the event. The Plaintiff’s costs is summarily assessed at HK$135,000 on a broad-brush basis.

DISPOSITION

53.I make the following disposition:-

(a)  The Defendant do pay the Plaintiff HK$280,818.40.

(b)  Interest on the sum of HK$280,818.40 at 1% above the prevailing HSBC prime rate from 23 February 2024 to date of this judgment, and thereafter at judgment rate until full payment.

(c)  Costs of assessment of damages (including any costs reserved) be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff summarily assessed at HK$135,000.

Ms Jennifer A Tse, instructed by Wan Yeung Hau & Co, for the Plaintiff

The Defendant was not represented and did not appear