Li Cheuk Yin v. Ahmed, Hamad and Another

DCCJ 729/2024

[2026] HKDC 1751

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 729 OF 2024

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

BETWEEN

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Background

1.This is the hearing of assessment of damages arising out of a traffic accident happened on 18 June 2021. The plaintiff claimed that the 1^st defendant as the driver and the 2^nd defendant as the registered owner of a vehicle caused damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle.

2.The Writ of Summons endorsed with the Statement of Claim was issued on 5 February 2024. In default of notice of intention to defend, interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendants on 12 March 2024 with damages to be assessed.

3.On 12 December 2025, the action was set down for assessment of damages. The hearing before me is for this purpose.

The plaintiff’s case

4.The plaintiff gave evidence at the assessment hearing and he confirmed and adopted his witness statement filed on 31 July 2024. Ms Liu Tak Yee (“Ms Liu”) of the plaintiff’s insurer, AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited, also testified in court and adopted her witness statement filed on 3 April 2025.

5.According to the plaintiff’s evidence, he is the owner of a private car with registration no VC2599 (“the Plaintiff’s Vehicle”).

6.On 18 June 2021 at around 12:03pm, the plaintiff was driving the Plaintiff’s Vehicle near the juncture of Un Chau Street and Yen Chow Street. When the Plaintiff’s Vehicle was turning left, it was collided by another private car with registration no NE6189 (“the 2^nd Defendant Vehicle”). At the time of the accident, the 2^nd Defendant’s Vehicle was driven by the 1^st defendant.

7.After the accident, the 1^st defendant convicted of the offence of careless driving at Kowloon City Magistracy on 15 August 2022.

8.Furthermore, according to Ms Liu’s evidence, as a result of the accident caused by the defendants, AXA paid a sum of HK$164,475.00, being the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle, and had paid a sum of HK$900.00 for surveyor’s fee. According to the plaintiff, he paid the policy excess of HK$2,500.00.

9.According, the plaintiff is claiming a sum of HK$167,875.00 which consists of repair costs of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle in the total sum of HK$166,975.00 and costs of surveyor’s report in the sum of HK$900.00.

Repair cost

10.The plaintiff relies on the Motor Survey Report dated 6 July 2021 and compiled by Control€xpert Hong Kong Corp Ltd (“Control€xpert”) in support of his claim for repair costs (“Motor Survey Report”). Pursuant to the order of Madam Registrar M Soong on 10 July 2025, leave was granted for the Motor Survey Report to be adduced as evidence without calling the maker thereof.

11.According to the surveyor report, the total repair shop cost of items including labor, paintwork and spare parts was HK$231,754.96, and after deduction as suggested by Control€xpert, the adjusted cost was HK$166,975.00.

12.After carefully considering the Motor Survey Report, I accept that the adjusted figure, which is also the amount claimed by the plaintiff, is reasonable.

13.Furthermore, even though the repair costs were partly borne by the plaintiff’s insurer, the plaintiff should be compensated in full: see Ma Kwan Ho v Tseng Kin Man, DCCJ 3188/2019, unrep, 31 August 2021 at para 16 and Cheung Kun Hing v Tse Lai Ying, DCCJ 2075/2012, unrep, 10 March 2014 at para 16. In the latter case, the Court cited the following passage by Lord Bridge in Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills Ltd, [1988] AC 514:-

“ … But to the prima facie rule there are two well established exceptions. First, where a plaintiff recovers under an insurance policy for which he has paid the premiums, the insurance moneys are not deductible from damages payable by the tortfeasor .…Secondly, when the plaintiff receives money from the benevolence of third parties prompted by sympathy of his misfortune, as in the case of a beneficiary from a disaster fund, the amount received is again to be disregarded … In both these cases there is in one sense double recovery. If the award of damages adequately compensates the plaintiff, as it should, the additional amounts received from the insurer or from third party benevolence may be regarded as a net gain to the plaintiff resulting from his injury. But in both cases the common sense of the exceptions stares one in the face. It may be summed up in the rhetorical question: ‘Why should the tortfeasor derive any benefit, in the one case, from the premiums which the plaintiff has paid to insure himself against some contingency, however caused, in the other case, from the money provided by the third party with the sole intention of benefitting the injured plaintiff?’”

14.I agree and adopt the same rationale and analysis applicable to the present case. Having considered the official receipts in relation to the sums paid by the insurer and by the plaintiff dated 31 August 2021 and 16 August 2021 respectively. I find that the plaintiff should be compensated will award the same in full at the adjusted sum of HK$166,975.00 as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s Vehicle.

Surveyor’s fee

15.According to the receipt dated 6 July 2021 issued by Control€xpert, the fee for the provision of services relating to surveying damages in the present case is HK$900. There is no reason why this fee should not be compensated. I therefore award the same in full.

Conclusion

16.I accept the plaintiff’s evidence in full and award damages to the plaintiff in the sum of HK$167,875.00.

17.Interest is sought pursuant to section 49 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336). I therefore grant interest of the awarded sum from the date of the Writ of Summons (ie 5 February 2024) to the date of this assessment at 1% above HSBC’s best lending rate, and thereafter at judgment rate to the date of full payment.

18.Costs should follow the event in the present case. I order that the 1^st and 2^nd defendants do pay the plaintiff the costs of assessment of damages, including all reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

Ms Kong Kin Man of Tsang & Associates, for the plaintiff

The 1^st and 2^nd defendants were not represented and did not appear