Fong Kam Chi v. Wong Wai Shing
Read the full judgment text of HCPI 910/1997 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 December 1999.
1. In September 1996 the Plaintiff, then aged 41 (being born on 16th May 1955) was working as a caretaker at residential premises in Tsuen Wan. One of his duties was to take care of the residents and their visitors coming in and going out of the buildings. He was required to work one of two shifts, the day shift which ran from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or the night shift from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Residents of the building could gain access either by the use of a key or by the use of a card insert
Cited by 6 cases
|
HCPI000910/1997 HCPI 910/97 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 910 OF 1997
Coram : The Hon. Mr. Justice Jackson in Court Dates of Hearing : 23, 24, 25, 29 & 30 November 1999 Date of Handing Down Judgment : 13 December 1999 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. In September 1996 the Plaintiff, then aged 41 (being born on 16th May 1955) was working as a caretaker at residential premises in Tsuen Wan. One of his duties was to take care of the residents and their visitors coming in and going out of the buildings. He was required to work one of two shifts, the day shift which ran from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. or the night shift from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Residents of the building could gain access either by the use of a key or by the use of a card inserted at a gate to the premises. Non-residents could only enter the building with the consent and assistance of the caretaker whose duty it was to take down their identity card numbers and the number of the flat which they were visiting. 2. On 15th September 1996 the Plaintiff was working on the night shift, and at about 9 p.m. the Defendant arrived at the building entrance with his wife and son. The Defendant, who was a resident in the premises, attempted to use his entry card to gain access, but it would not operate properly. There followed an altercation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, during the course of which the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant on the nose and he was subsequently taken to hospital. 3. As a consequence of this altercation the Defendant was charged in the Magistrate's Court at Tsuen Wan with an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He pleaded guilty to that offence and was fined and ordered to pay $1,000 in compensation to the Plaintiff. By writ of summons issued on 29th August 1997, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant damages consequent upon the incident on 15th September 1996. 4. In particular the Plaintiff claimed that he had suffered:
5. In a revised statement of damages dated 19th June 1999 the Plaintiff claims awards for PSLA, aggravated damages, pre-trial loss of earnings, future loss of earnings, loss of earning capacity, special damages and interest. The Evidence 6. The Plaintiff himself gave evidence and he called Dr. Lau Chi Kwong, a medical and health officer of the Accident and Emergency Department at Yan Chai hospital and Dr. Chan Tat Ming a medical officer in the Ear, Nose and Throat Department of that hospital. 7. In his evidence in chief, the Plaintiff adopted what he had said in his witness statement prepared for these proceedings. He also produced, as exhibits, a number of receipts for herbal remedies, and some of those receipts show that the herbal remedies were sought for complaints such as insomnia, dizziness, and head pain. 8. The account which the Plaintiff had given in his witness statement, and which he repeated during the course of cross-examination was in essence as follows: - he had done nothing at all to justify the treatment of him by the Defendant. He said that as a consequence of the assault upon him, the most disabling injuries were those to his head, to his nose and to his ear. 9. As to his tinnitus, he told me that it was intermittent, and particularly bad when he was travelling on a train or a boat. He said that he often felt dizzy when travelling and had, on occasions, vomited. 10. When cross-examined, the Plaintiff said that on the day of the incident, which was 15th September, and when he saw the Defendant, he did not at that time realise that he was a resident and nor did he know that the Defendant had recently purchased a flat in the development. He said that when he first saw the Defendant, he was trying to put a card into the machine, but that the door did not open. 11. When asked if he realised that the Defendant could not gain access to the premises, the Plaintiff said that the Defendant asked him to open the door, and he (the Plaintiff) said that he asked the Defendant in which unit he lived before asking him to produce his ID card. As a consequence of this, the Plaintiff said that the Defendant shouted at him using foul language and causing a disturbance. He said that the Defendant told him that he would get him sacked from his job. That is why (so the Plaintiff said) that he reported the matter to his superior through his walkie-talkie. The Plaintiff went on from there to say that he did not dare open the door because the Defendant raised his voice and was being abusive, and (the Plaintiff added) that the Defendant was kicking the door, and he said that he was frightened that the Defendant would beat him. 12. Coming to the incident itself, the Plaintiff said that he eventually opened the door upon the instructions of one of his colleagues, and when he did so the Defendant entered the premises and no sooner had he entered than he punched the Plaintiff on the face and the Plaintiff lost his balance. The Plaintiff went on to say that having been knocked to the ground with that first punch, he then got up on his feet and the Defendant then hit him on the head and face and his ear repeatedly. 13. The Plaintiff denied the suggestion put to him that he punched the Defendant's right eye first because he was afraid that the Plaintiff was about to attack him. When the suggestion was put to him that the Defendant only hit the Plaintiff's nose once in self-defence, the Plaintiff denied that was so. Indeed he repeated that after the Defendant had hit him once and knocked him to the ground, and when he got back to his feet, the Defendant hit him again and, as a consequence of those blows, he fell back to his counter and hit the back of his head on a letter box. As a consequence of this the Plaintiff said he fainted and lost consciousness. 14. When asked why, or how it was, that when the doctor saw him in the hospital, he was described as being alert and conscious, the Plaintiff said "I would not say that I was alert and conscious". When then asked why it was that he did not mention to the doctor that his ear had been hit, the Plaintiff replied "I had no feeling at that time; I could not feel the injury to my ear: it was only a week later that I experienced the ringing in my ear". He went on to agree with counsel for the Defendant that when he was interviewed by the police in the hospital at 10:30 p.m. on the night of the assault, the only matter that was of real concern to him was that the Defendant had struck him upon the nose causing injury and bleeding. He then went on in cross-examination to agree that he had sought to ward off the Defendant to protect himself. 15. When asked specifically about his allegation that he had been struck by the Defendant upon his ear, the Plaintiff said "Yes, I think that must be so after the assault by the Plaintiff; then I did not remember what happened". 16. As his cross-examination continued, the Plaintiff denied that he had exaggerated his injuries, and he again explained why it was that, when he first saw a doctor he only referred to the fact that his nose had been struck by the Defendant and that there was an injury to the back of his head, and not that he was suffering from a hearing loss and dizziness. 17. At this stage of proceedings, the Plaintiff was asked in cross-examination about his employment pattern following the date of the incident. He gave reasons why it was that he had moved from one employer to another, and why he left one employment after another. In effect what the Plaintiff said was that in his various jobs he found that he was still suffering from dizziness and, on occasions dizziness leading to fainting, and that he did not wish to tell his employers of his ailments because, if he had done so or they had otherwise found out he would be sacked and he would lose his licence to work as a caretaker. He went on to explain why it was that he resigned from the specific jobs and why it was that he gave the reasons that he did give in his resignation notices to his employers. He was then asked why it was that there were large gaps between his various periods of employment, and he sought to explain the reasons for that. He said that he was still receiving medical treatment and that he was not up to doing the job that was required of him, and he said again that he did not wish to risk his position as a caretaker by revealing to his employers that, in essence, he was not fit to do the jobs. 18. In this regard the Plaintiff's evidence was that he was employed by Sky Pacific Property Consultant Ltd. between 1st February 1996 and 8th March 1997 upon which date he resigned; that on 25th March 1997 he was employed as a guard by Hong Yip Service Co. Ltd. until 21st June 1997 when he resigned; that on 17th March 1998 he was employed by Urban Property Management Ltd. as a guard until he resigned on 1st April 1998 and that on 12th March 1999 he worked for Funing Estate Management Ltd. as a Building Attendant until he resigned some two months later. He said that from then up until this trial he had remained unemployed. He told me what efforts he had made to find re-employment. 19. In re-examination, the Plaintiff told me that prior to the assault by the Defendant, there was nothing wrong with his hearing and nor was anything wrong with his sense of balance. He went on to tell me that he stopped seeking western medicine because it seemed to be doing him no good and he lost faith in it. What he said about this was: -
20. Further, in his re-examination, the Plaintiff told me that following his resignation from the Sky Pacific Company, he tried to find employment. Indeed, he had a number of interviews, but those interviews were unsuccessful. He said that the reason why, or the principle reason why, he had difficulty in finding new employment was his own concern about his health and, in particular, his dizziness. He added that his amnesia did not help matters. 21. When asked what his plans were for the future, he replied that his plans were to try and find employment and, when asked how he expected to be able to do that, he said "I have to try, I have a family to support". In answers to questions put to the Plaintiff by me, he said that on his way to hospital after the incident his principal injury, and what concerned him the most, was the injury to his nose and to his head. He said that he only became aware of difficulties with his hearing about a week later, and that as a consequence of that he assumed he had been punched in the ear by the Defendant. He also told me that the Chinese herbal remedies relieved his symptoms somewhat, and he said that the remedies made him feel more comfortable concerning his dizziness. 22. I then asked the Plaintiff to describe how his so called "dizziness" manifested itself, and he told me that it was spinning in his head and that he could not remember things, and that his balance was affected so that he could not walk properly but he could only stagger, and that he could not stand without support. 23. The Plaintiff told me that his condition had not improved between the incident and the present time, and he said that he could not foretell when it would be that he would feel dizzy. He went on to confirm that, as a result of his condition, he had vomited once and that he suffered from vertigo as well as from tinnitus and deafness in his ear. He reiterated that he had suffered none of these complaints prior to the assault upon him by the Defendant. 24. The Defendant gave evidence and called his wife and son. He also called Ho Fook Sun of Hong Yip Service Co. Ltd.; Madam Wong Kam Fung of Funing Estate Management Ltd.; Lai Kwok Chi of Sky Pacific Property Consultants Ltd. and Professor Wei an ear, nose and throat specialist. 25. The Defendant adopted his witness statement as his evidence in chief and, when cross-examined about his criminal convictions he agreed that he had 4 such convictions but, he told me, he could remember only one of them which was for "fighting". When he was warned by me of the likely consequences of committing perjury, the Defendant immediately recalled another of his previous convictions. He also recalled that in respect of each of his 4 previous court appearances in respect of criminal charges he had pleaded guilty and that he had admitted facts which were read over to him. 26. As to his court appearance in respect of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed upon the Plaintiff, the Defendant said, in effect, that he had pleaded guilty to it because it was more convenient for him to do so than to plead not guilty which would have resulted in him losing time at work. Despite the content of his witness statement the Defendant then went on to acknowledge that when the brief facts of the case were read to him, he had understood them. And indeed he went on to acknowledge that those brief facts were in fact true. 27. I think from what he then said, that he was saying in effect that when he admitted those brief facts, he was admitting no more, and no less, than that he had assaulted the Plaintiff and in so doing had occasioned him actual bodily harm albeit that he believed that he was acting in self defence. 28. The Defendant told me that he could not now remember telling the magistrate in mitigation that he was, and here I quote from the court record, "angry at the time and that he (the Plaintiff) had hit him first". The Defendant said that he had told the police that he had been defending himself. He went on to agree in his evidence before me that when the Plaintiff opened the door, he (the Defendant) went into the premises in a "furious rage". He also agreed that he approached the Plaintiff and that it was at that stage that the Defendant punched him. The Defendant acknowledged that prior to the assault, he had scolded the Plaintiff for a long time with foul language. 29. When asked what his reaction was to the Plaintiff punching him in the eye, the Defendant replied that his reaction was to hit the Plaintiff's nose once with his fist. As to what happened to the Plaintiff after he had struck him, the Defendant said that he had no idea, because immediately after he had hit the Plaintiff, he had turned around and walked to the car park of the premises. In particular, he said, he could not recall whether the Plaintiff had fallen over as a result of the blow to his face, and that whilst he might have said in his witness statement prepared for this trial (in paragraph 9) that the Plaintiff had fallen to the ground, he could not now remember that happening. 30. The Defendant also denied that the Plaintiff had asked him for his ID card when he was trying to get into the building; he then denied, contradicting what he had said earlier, that he was annoyed and could not control his temper; and he denied that he had "bullied" the Plaintiff who was an apparently weak man. When it was suggested to him that he (the Defendant) was the only aggressive party, the Defendant replied "I was very angry". He went on to agree that he had never retreated after the initial assault which he claimed had been made upon him by the Plaintiff. 31. Mr. Ho Fook Sun was the Plaintiff's supervisor at the Hong Yip Services Co. Ltd. where the Plaintiff worked from 25th March 1997 to 21st June 1997. Mr. Ho told me initially that he had never reprimanded the Plaintiff (as alleged by the Plaintiff in his evidence) for making a mistake regarding an identity card check at those premises. However, when cross-examined, the witness said that his opinion that the Plaintiff's performance was not up to standard, was formed because the Plaintiff had failed to sign occurrence books at various times, and that he got confused about those books. He agreed that the Plaintiff had at no time mentioned to him his medical disabilities. 32. The witness then altered his evidence, concerning the I.D. card mistake made by the Plaintiff, by agreeing that what the Plaintiff had done was to enter into the occurrence book an I.D. card number with only five digits and, as a consequence of this mistake, he (the witness) had told the Plaintiff that he should be more prudent in his work. He went on to say that he gave the Plaintiff a chance to rectify the position, and he told him that if he did not do so, then the company would sack him. He said that after a period of observation, the Plaintiff did not appear to improve and that, in consequence, on behalf of the company he had decided that the Plaintiff was not suitable to continue in employment and that he then told the Plaintiff that he should resign. 33. When asked in re-examination what else there was in the Plaintiff's conduct which led him (the witness) to believe that he was not suitable for employment, the witness replied that sometimes he (the Plaintiff) fell asleep during the night shift, and that he (the witness) had been told by other supervisors that the Plaintiff had a "screw loose", and that is why the Plaintiff was told to resign. 34. The next witness called on behalf of the Defendant was Madam Wong Kam Fung. Madam Wong was employed by Funing Estate Management Ltd. That company employed the Plaintiff as a building attendant from 12th March 1999 for about two months. Madam Wong told me that the Plaintiff resigned from that company saying that the job was not suitable to him. Madam Wong agreed that the employment records of the company made no mention of any sickness or fainting by the Plaintiff, or that he had sought leave, or indeed that his job performance was not of a required standard. She sought to explain this by saying that the Plaintiff was only "on probation" in the job. 35. Mr. Lai Kwok Chi is a director of Sky Pacific Property Consultant Ltd. which company employed the Plaintiff between 1st February 1996 and 8th March 1997 during which period the Plaintiff was assaulted by the Defendant. Mr. Lai agreed that when the Plaintiff resigned from his employment with that company, the reason he gave for it on the requisite form was "lost interest in work". Mr. Lai also told me that if the Plaintiff had continued with his employment, he might have expected now (in 1999) to have been in receipt of a monthly salary of between $5,400 and $5,500. 36. Cross-examined this witness confirmed that, according to his company's records, there was nothing wrong with the Plaintiff's performance of his duties prior to the assault. He agreed that the Plaintiff's behaviour was of the type attributable to the average normal caretaker. He said that there was nothing to suggest that he was not dutiful, diligent and responsible prior to the assault upon him by the Defendant. 37. The next witness called by the Defendant was his wife. She did not witness the incident which has given rise to these proceedings. What she did witness were the events which led up to it. She told me that, prior to any assault, her husband had become angry and that he had kicked the door to the premises. When pressed upon the matter, she denied that she had witnessed the assault itself. 38. The Defendant's son Wong Chon Kwo was aged 14 at the time of the incident. When asked in cross-examination whether he thought that his father was right to punch the Plaintiff on the nose, the witness replied "both of them were wrong". He agreed that his father had a bad temper, but he disagreed that he got angry easily; indeed he denied that his father had difficulty in controlling his temper. He agreed that his father had used abusive language towards the Plaintiff and that he (his father) had kicked the door to the premises. He denied that his father had said to the Plaintiff "I will fire you if you don't open the door", and "if you don't open the door, I will beat you". 39. This witness also denied that the Plaintiff had ever asked the Defendant for his ID card. He went on to say that he had heard the Plaintiff's head banging on the hard ground (the floor) but he said that the blow delivered by his father was not very heavy. When asked if his father had retreated after the Plaintiff had hit him on his eye, the witness said "No". When asked if immediately before the Plaintiff had punched his father, his father had been approaching the Plaintiff, the witness said "Yes". When asked if his father had been hit while moving towards the caretaker, the witness replied "Yes". When asked why was that he had not followed his father away from the scene after the initial blows had been struck, the witness replied "I was still too young to realise." The Medical Evidence 40. Dr. Lau told me that at 9:23 p.m. on 15th September, he examined the Plaintiff and found him to be alert and conscious with a swelling and bruising over the nasal bridge region and with an abrasion over the occiput of his head. The doctor said that he referred the Plaintiff to the Ear, Nose and Throat Department because an X-ray was needed to investigate a suspected nasal bone fracture. [In the event there was no such fracture]. 41. Having been discharged following examination on 15th September and being given sick leave for two days, the doctor told me that the Plaintiff attended again at the Accident and Emergency Department on 18th September complaining of dizziness, tinnitus and difficulty in breathing. Although the doctor told me that he himself did not see the Plaintiff on that occasion, from the hospital notes he was able to say that physical examination of the Plaintiff showed him to be normal; that a chest X-ray had been taken and it was unremarkable and that the Plaintiff was given an injection which relieved his symptoms. 42. In his evidence in chief, Dr. Lau said that the Plaintiff had made no mention of suffering a loss of consciousness during or as a result of the altercation. He then went on to describe the symptoms of post-concussion syndrome. The doctor said that it was impossible to test a patient's complaints concerning those symptoms, as such symptoms are quite subjective. When asked how long such a syndrome might last, the doctor replied that it was variable, and could be from a few weeks to a lifetime. He said the only treatment available was for the symptoms, not for the syndrome itself. Among the symptoms of the syndrome the doctor said, were insomnia, amnesia, loss of strength, respiratory difficulties and a speeding up of the heart beat. 43. In cross-examination, Dr. Lau agreed that when he saw the Plaintiff for the first time, the Plaintiff made no complaint of any injuries other than to his nose and to his head. The doctor also agreed that when he completed a sick leave form for the Plaintiff, he circled upon it the words "permanent disability is not expected". Finally, in cross-examination, the doctor agreed that given the nature of Plaintiff's present complaints, it was possible for a patient to lie about such complaints, and that a doctor may not be able to detect those lies. 44. Dr. Chan Tak Ming told me that he had seen the Plaintiff three times, and that the Plaintiff complained of tinnitus on his left hand side and of dizziness. The doctor told me that in 1996 he had investigated the Plaintiff's hearing and that a balance test was carried out. The result of that test was that he found that the balance of the Plaintiff was, as he put it, abnormal. 45. When asked if the balance test was an objective test, the doctor said that it was not completely so, but that it was, as he put it, 'rather objective'. The doctor gave evidence concerning the Plaintiff's hearing disabilities. He said that the difficulty which he found in the hearing in the Plaintiff's left ear in 1996 was probably not "noise induced". When asked whether the dizziness complained of by the Plaintiff might amount to a symptom of post con-concussion syndrome, the doctor replied that this was a question really to be put before a neurosurgeon rather than to an ear, nose and throat doctor. The doctor then said that a patient with a balance problem was likely to suffer from dizziness; that certainly in 1996 the Plaintiff had a balance problem, and thus his complaints of dizziness as described to me could well be genuine. 46. Dr. Chan was then asked about the assessment of the Plaintiff's hearing carried out by Professor Wei in August 1998. He agreed that that assessment showed the Plaintiff to be suffering from no hearing disability and he told me that such obvious improvement to the Plaintiff's hearing was likely to be have been a gradual rather than a sudden process. 47. In cross-examination Dr. Chan explained in considerable detail his examinations of the Plaintiff's hearing and balance and the basis for his conclusions. Whilst he agreed that there may well be medical literature which had concluded that his statistical findings did not equate to abnormality, either of hearing or of balance, he did not agree with those conclusions. As to the likelihood of improvement in a patient's abnormality of balance the Doctor told me that this depends upon a number of factors including the natural compensatory functions of the body the condition of the patient and his age. He also told me that the Plaintiff's complaints of fainting or falling into unconsciousness, of headaches, amnesia and insomnia were not related to any abnormality of balance. When asked why it was that he had made no mention in his reports to the Plaintiff's abnormality of balance the doctor said that this was because when assessing disability the most important factor was hearing loss. 48. Professor Wei, a most eminent specialist, did not disagree with Dr. Chan's evidence at least to any extent affecting this claim save that he queried Dr. Chan's finding in 1996 concerning the Plaintiff's balance and his basis for that finding. What he did tell me however was that when he saw the Plaintiff he was investigating specifically the complaints of injury to the nose and that when he saw the Plaintiff in 1998 any prior hearing loss had disappeared. 49. The Professor said that he did not take any steps to ascertain any abnormality of balance simply because the Plaintiff has made no real complaint of such and that, in any event, the figures used by Dr. Chan in his assessment in 1996 would not have led him to the same conclusion. Putting it another way the Professor said that in his view the Plaintiff was not shown to be suffering from an abnormality of balance in 1996 and, if he was suffering from dizziness, that might not be related to the Plaintiff's ear but to something else in the central nervous system. 50. In cross-examination the Professor told me that he had seen the Plaintiff for no more than about 15-20 minutes. Counsels' Submissions 51. Both Mr. Chang for the Plaintiff and Ms. Cheung for the Defendant made full and helpful submissions to me at the conclusion of the evidence. 52. In essence Ms. Cheung sought to argue that on 15th September 1996 the Defendant was acting in self defence when he struck the Plaintiff on the nose and that he is not liable at all for any injuries suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of that blow. 53. As to causation Ms. Cheung submits that there is no proven connection between any of the Plaintiff's injuries and the assault and that, in any event the Plaintiff has been shown at the very least to have exaggerated his injuries in an attempt to enhance his claim. 54. As to quantum Ms. Cheung submits, inter alia, that there is no justifiable claim for aggravated damages; that there is no permanent disability; that the costs of Chinese Medicines and remedies have not been proved and that, in relation to the Plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings, these are wholly unjustified because he has been malingering and has shown no interest in keeping his employment, let alone in finding alternative work. 55. For the Plaintiff, Mr. Chang argues that on the evidence the Defendant is plainly liable to the Plaintiff for the consequences of his assault upon him and that the question of self defence simply does not arise. 56. Mr. Chang lays particular stress upon the fact - if it be a fact - that the symptoms complained of by the Plaintiff simply did not exist prior to the assault upon him and thus, if I accept his evidence, it must follow that the Defendant's assault upon him directly resulted in those symptoms. Mr. Chang also argues strongly, inter alia, for an award of aggravated damages and he takes issue with any suggestion that the Plaintiff has been shown to have been malingering and to have been exaggerating his symptoms. Conclusions Liability 57. On all of the evidence before me I am in no doubt whatsoever that on 15 September 1996 the Defendant punched the Plaintiff in the face and knocked him to the ground. During the course of this attack the Plaintiff suffered a bleeding nose and a minor injury to the back of his head which hit a letter box. In my judgment there is no question whatsoever of the Defendant striking this blow - and others - in self defence. The Defendant was extremely angry when he assaulted the Plaintiff and he behaved with insufferable arrogance. The Plaintiff succeeds in full on liability. Quantum General Damages 58. On all of the evidence before me I am quite satisfied that the direct result of the Defendant's assault upon the Plaintiff was that he suffered tinnitus, some hearing loss and some loss of balance which made him subject to occasional spells of dizziness. I also accept that at least some of the Plaintiffs complaints related to symptoms of post concussion syndrome. I accept that the Plaintiff had recovered his hearing loss by 1998 and that the abnormality of balance found in 1996 has probably largely dissipated by compensatory function and that it will continue to do so, albeit that I accept on the Plaintiff's own evidence that he is still prone to occasional spells of dizziness. 59. I assess damages for PSLA at $120,000.00. 60. This is not, in my view, a case which justifies an award for aggravated damages. Special damages 61. As to loss of earnings I have found this somewhat difficult. Whilst I am prepared to accept, at least up to a point, the reasons advanced by the Plaintiff for his resignation from various jobs, I am unable to conclude on all of the evidence before me, that such resignations can be said to have been justified so that the Defendant must meet the financial consequences. The Plaintiff's lack of present employment is due (so it seems to me on the evidence) to a certain amount of reluctance on his part to find work suitable to his condition as he perceives it to be. 62. Accordingly I make no award in respect of pre-trial or post-trial loss of earnings or in respect of loss of earning capacity, albeit that I have reflected in the award for general damages some element for the influence of the assault upon his mental state concerning his employment worries. The Plaintiff claims the following additional special damages: -
63. In my judgment items (a), (b) and (c) are reasonable whereas item (d) is excessive and will only be allowed to the extent of $10,000.00. 64. There will be judgment for the Plaintiff for $120,000.00 general damages and $16,218.00 special damages to which will be added interest at the appropriate rates and for the appropriate periods. From the total sum must be deducted $53,547.86 received by the Plaintiff by way of Employers Compensation. 65. There will be an order nisi for costs in favour of the Plaintiff such costs to be taxed if not agreed. The Plaintiff's own costs will be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid provisions.
Representation: Mr. Geoffrey P. Chang instructed by Messrs. Chung & Kwan for the Plaintiff. Ms. Emily S.K. Cheung instructed by Messrs. C.C. Lee & Co. for the Defendant. |