Ta v. Tsang Tsz Ho
|
DCPI 394/2023 [2026] HKDC 1800 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 394 OF 2023 ---------------------------
---------------------------
----------------------------------------- ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ----------------------------------------- 1.This is an assessment of damages in a personal injury case in which the plaintiff was induced by the defendant to consent to engage in sexual activities on the false basis and understanding that the defendant was a female. Procedural History 2.On 25 January 2024, the defendant filed an Acknowledgement of Service of the Writ of Summons indicating his intention to contest these proceedings. 3.However, the defendant has not filed and served any Defence. On 26 September 2024, interlocutory judgment on liability was entered against the defendant leaving damages to be assessed and costs. 4.The defendant has been absent from the proceedings in this action all along. He was absent at the assessment hearing. 5.The Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages was served by post on the defendant at his last known address on 9 April 2026. Affirmation of service regarding the Assessment of Damages hearing was filed on 24 April 2026 and Mr Schweitzer Wong, Counsel for the plaintiff, confirmed there was no returned mail as at the date of the assessment hearing. 6.I was satisfied that notice of the assessment hearing had been duly given to the defendant. It was the defendant’s choice not to attend the assessment hearing. I proceeded with the assessment of damages in this case in the absence of the defendant. The Plaintiff’s Case 7.The plaintiff was the only person who testified at the assessment of damages. She adopted her witness statement filed herein as part of her evidence in chief. 8.The plaintiff was born in 2001. At the material time, she was 18 years of age and a university student, majoring in law. 9.Since 21 November 2019, the plaintiff and the defendant acquainted with each other through lesbian dating platforms. The defendant concealed his male gender and misled the plaintiff into believing that he was a female, lesbian tomboy. 10.After some communications and on the understanding that the defendant was a female lesbian, the plaintiff agreed to engage in sexual activities with the defendant. 11.On 27 February 2020, the plaintiff and the defendant met in a hotel in Kwun Tong. They engaged in sexual activities including unprotected intercourse (“Sexual Activity”) during which the plaintiff found out that the defendant is in fact a male. Once the plaintiff realized that the defendant is a male, the plaintiff pushed away and confronted the defendant. The plaintiff then left the hotel room and sought assistance. 12.The plaintiff claims that she has never had any sexual intercourse with a male before. She only consented to engage in Sexual Activity with the defendant on the basis and understanding that the defendant was a female. As there was fraud or deliberate concealment of gender by the defendant, the plaintiff’s consent was invalid and she was sexually assaulted and raped by the defendant (“the Incident”). 13.A police report was made. Injuries and Treatment 14.On 28 February 2020, the plaintiff was admitted into the Department of Accident & Emergency of the United Christian Hospital (“UCH”). She was discharged with emergency contraceptive pill and hepatitis B immunization. She was referred to the Obstetrics & Gynaecology Department (“OGD”) of UCH for follow up. 15.During the plaintiff’s follow-up appointments at the OGD of UCH, urine pregnancy test was negative. Triple swabs showed bacterial vaginosis and candida infection. She was treated with antibiotics. On 29 April 2020 and 27 August 2020, the plaintiff received further hepatitis B vaccination. No further follow-up in OGD of UCH is required since August 2020. 16.On 26 May 2022, the plaintiff first consulted Dr Samantha Y M Yung (“Dr Yung”), a Registered Clinical Psychologist of the Hong Kong Mind Wellness (Child & Family) Centre. During the first session, the plaintiff reported that her mood was greatly affected by her excessive thinking and rumination about issues of faithfulness towards her boyfriend since mid-2021 (“the Boyfriend Issue”). She also reported the Incident to Dr Yung and explained that she did not seek therapy earlier because she did not want to keep recalling the Incident and the legal proceedings were already very stressful for her. Clinical assessment and inventories administered suggested a severe level of depression (Beck Depression Inventory-II) and a moderate level of anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory). The level of mood disturbance has caused clinically significant distress in her daily functioning. 17.The plaintiff attended a number of follow-up sessions for psychotherapy with Dr Yung. She demonstrated satisfactory progress and reported being more able to regulate her anxiety and cope with the rumination. 18.At a follow up session with Dr Yung on 16 December 2023, the plaintiff reported that she had been disturbed by the Incident all along and her mental state had gone worse because of the more frequent intrusion of the Incident. She reported some post-traumatic stress symptoms including avoidance of contact with males other than those in her close circle, nightmares with themes of indecent assault or rape, hypervigilance in public places and excessive rumination about interaction with males. Her mood and functioning had been enormously affected. She was diagnosed with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) due to the Incident. Continuous psychological intervention with regular treatment sessions was needed. 19.On 20 March 2025, the plaintiff underwent psychological assessment in Camden NHS Talking Therapies Service in London and was referred to the Brandon Centre for exploratory therapy. 20.During the session with Dr Yung on 28 August 2025, the plaintiff reported a more stable mood over the past year. She did not exhibit significant symptoms of PTSD, except for hypervigilance in public places. She reported occasional avoidance of contact with males. She also expressed concerns about potential future distress when handling cases related to sexual crimes. Otherwise, the Incident was no longer impacting her occupational and social functioning. She has not sought further psychotherapy since 4 July 2024 indicating no significant distress. 21.On 11 September 2025, the results of PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) indicated a moderate level of distress related to residual PTSD symptoms. Dr Yung opined that the plaintiff is likely experiencing mild to moderate residual PTSD symptoms intermittently, attributed to the Incident. Based on the plaintiff’s self-reported information, clinical assessment and observation, her mood and functioning have significantly improved. She is not suffering from any clinical diagnoses. Dr Yung recommends continuous psychological intervention with regular treatment sessions to be beneficial to address the residual distress. 22.The plaintiff received a total of 11 sessions of consultation and/or assessment with Dr Yung and 1 psychological assessment by the NHS Foundation Trust. Expert Evidence 23.The plaintiff elects not to adduce any expert medical evidence as to quantum and the defendant is deemed not to adduce any expert medical evidence at the Assessment of Damages in this action. 24.Accordingly, by an order dated 28 August 2025, no expert evidence as to quantum shall be adduced in written or oral form in this action. Assessment of the Plaintiff’s Evidence and Her Credibility 25.In assessing the credibility of the plaintiff, I bear in mind the general principles set out by Deputy High Court Judge Eugene Fung SC (as he then was) in his Judgment in Hui Cheung Fai & Another v Daiwa Development Limited & Others, HCA 1734/2009 (unreported, 8 April 2014):
26.The plaintiff’s testimony is not subject to any challenge as the defendant has not been present in these proceedings. The Plaintiff testified in a straightforward manner. 27.The plaintiff testified that after the Incident, her emotional and mental status was unstable. This has in turn affected her school and internship performance as well as career planning and development. There were occasions during her school and internship training where she panicked and lost concentration when she had to deal with scenarios or cases of sexual nature. She had to withdraw from an all-male mooting team when she was not able to stay physically in the library room with the team. 28.The plaintiff found the consultations with Dr Yung to be fruitful though a painful experience at times. 29.The plaintiff confirmed that she is stable now psychologically. She now works as a court advocate in the United Kingdom. She handles civil claims and could work normally. However, whenever she came across cases involving sexual elements (such as indecent assaults) or domestic violence, she still panicked and got emotional. Nonetheless, she could still complete her job. 30.As for her daily life, she confirmed that she is now fine. Her emotions might be triggered by reading or watching news of sexual nature or when she has to encounter strange men (such as travelling on public transports). She would get distracted easily. 31.She is not currently receiving any follow-up psychological treatments but is awaiting the scheduling of appointments/treatments by the Brandon Centre in the United Kingdom. 32.Overall, I find the plaintiff’s evidence credible and reliable, and I accept her evidence. 33.Based on these factual findings, I now turn to each head of claim. Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenities (“PSLA”) 34.In the Revised Statement of Damages (“RSOD”), the plaintiff claimed a sum of $250,000 for damages for PSLA. In the plaintiff’s written opening submissions, Mr Wong submitted that the amount claimed under this head is reasonable based on the following authorities and taking into account the effect of inflation:-
35.Although the plaintiff had reported to Dr Yung during consultations that her mood was also affected by the Boyfriend Issue, Dr Yung has confirmed in her Psychological Reports dated 29 December 2023 and 13 September 2025 that the plaintiff suffered from PTSD as a result of the Incident. 36.Given the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and treatment, and her occasional residual psychological distress, I find that after taking into account inflation, the plaintiff’s claim for PSLA in the sum of HK$250,000 is reasonable and I allow this claim in full. Aggravated Damages 37.In the RSOD, the plaintiff claimed HK$100,000 under this head on the basis that the Sexual Activity was obscene and outraging in nature. In particular, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had concealed from her that he was in fact a male in all events leading up to the Sexual Activity with the intention to defraud and procure her into engaging in sexual acts with him; that the defendant did not use any condom during the intercourse; and that the plaintiff was only 18 years old at the material time and hence was vulnerable. 38.The principles applicable to the award of aggravated damages are well-established. In Ambarini-Bt-Sahari-Kasto (supra.), it was held that: -
39.Mr Wong relied on the following authorities in support of the amount claim for aggravated damages:-
40.In addition to the above authorities cited to me, I have also considered Lee Sze Man (sue by Ching Kwong Ming her mother and next friend) (supra.) whereby HK$80,000 was awarded for aggravated damages. 41.I find that the defendant’s conduct or motive was contumelious. The plaintiff was humiliated, distressed and insulted. Her pride and dignity suffered as a result. In all circumstances, I consider HK$80,000 to be fair compensation for injury to the plaintiff’s feelings and I would accordingly allow HK$80,000 under this head. Special Damages 42.As confirmed by Mr Wong, the plaintiff claimed HK$32,350 for special damages as particularized below: -
43.In respect of medical expenses of HK$31,050 under this head, it comprises of consultation sessions with Dr Yung (totalling HK$24,900) and 2 report fees of Dr Yung (totaling HK$6,150). The amount claimed is supported by receipts and I would allow it in full. 44.In respect of travelling expenses, no receipts were provided. The plaintiff claimed that she took about 6 round trips between her residence in Kwun Tong and UCH by taxi, with each round trip at the costs of around HK$50. She also travelled by MTR between her residence and Dr Yung’s clinic in Central, with each round trip at the costs of around HK$30. As mentioned previously, she received a total of 11 sessions of consultation and/or assessment by Dr Yung. This gives a total of HK$630 (HK$50 x 6 + HK$30 x 11) for travelling expenses and I would accordingly allow this amount of HK$630 for travelling expenses under this head. Future Medical Expenses 45.The plaintiff claimed HK$16,800 for future medical expenses with Dr Yung on the assumption that the plaintiff requires 8 more consultation sessions with Dr Yung at the costs of HK$2,100 per session. 46.Although there is no expert evidence on the need of future medical treatment, Dr Yung has advised that continuous psychological intervention with regular treatment sessions would be beneficial to address the plaintiff’s residual distress. The plaintiff has confirmed in her evidence in court that she is awaiting the scheduling of appointments/ treatments by the Brandon Centre and the treatments to be provided are free of charge. In the circumstances, I would only allow a sum of $6,300 (equivalent to 3 treatment sessions with Dr Yung) under this head to cover the plaintiff’s occasional need of private psychological treatments. Conclusion 47.In conclusion, based on the aforesaid, I have assessed the damages in this case as follows: -
48.On top of the above amount, the usual interest will be awarded at 2% per annum for general damages (PSLA and Aggravated Damages) from the date of service of the writ to the date of this judgment and half judgment rate for special damages from date of the Incident to date of assessment, thereafter at judgment rate. 49.I would also order that the defendant shall pay the plaintiff’s costs of the assessment. Having considered the Statement of Costs filed by the plaintiff’s solicitors on 10 August 2026, in which only manual work of HK$18,595 and disbursements of HK$1,809 have been claimed, and all professional/ profits costs and counsel’s fees have been waived, I summarily assessed the plaintiff’s costs of the assessment as claimed in the Statement of Costs at HK$20,404, to be paid forthwith. 50.Lastly, I thank Mr Wong and his team for their assistance provided to the court.
Mr Schweitzer Wong appearing with Ms Cherry Chau and Ms Jean Lee, instructed by Patricia Ho & Associates, for the plaintiff The defendant was not represented and did not appear | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Summaries and metadata are generated from the judgment. Report an error
Cases cited in this judgment