Lamma Rock Products Ltd v. Goodrow Enterprises Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2937/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The plaintiff's claim is for damages for trepass to land.
|
HCA002937/1983
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT ___________ BETWEEN
____________ Coram: Master Betts in Chambers Appearances: J. Szeto, Esq. of Messrs Philip K.H. Wong & Co for the Plaintiff Both Defendants absent and unrepresented Date of hearing: 9th August 1983 _______________________ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES _______________________ 1. The plaintiff's claim is for damages for trepass to land. 2. Neither defendant has taken any' step in the Action and interlocutory judgment was entered on 11th April 1983 with damages to be assessed. 3. The claim arises in this way. 4. The plaintiff took a tenancy from the Crown of a piece of land in Tuen Mun for the purpose of storage and distribution of aggregate. The term ran from 4th August 1980 at an annual rent of $960,000.00. Mr Chow Boon Sheung, a senior manager of the plaintiff, who gave evidence, told me the land was urgently needed for the company's operations. The company also knew, through its officers, of the existing trepass (with which I will now deal) before it took possession of the land on 16th August 1980. 5. Blocking access to the land was a hydraulic crane belonging to the 1st defendant and 77 iron pallets belonging to the 2nd defendant. According to Mr Chow's uncontradicted evidence they rendered the land impossible to use and caused considerable loss to the plaintiff. 6. On 6th October that year the plaintiff removed the offending items, by sea, to its own storage depot on Lamma Island where they remain to this day. 7. The damages claimed by the plaintiff are-set out in the Statement of Claim as follows:
8. I accept the figures Set out even though the hours claimed for a senior manager and for a supervisor were not recorded but supplied "from memory". 9. From the evidence of Mr Chow it merges that in spite of the urgency with which the plaintiff needed the land it set about clearing these obstructions in just about the most leisured and expensive way that could be devised. No representation at all was made to the Crown prior to, or at, completion that vacant possession was not being given. No permission was sought from the Crown to move these obstructions a few yards on to the adjoining vacant Crown Site. Instead, the better part of two months was spent by senior management in tracing the defendants, obtaining survey report and; eventually; arranging shipment to other premises of the plaintiff on Lamma Island where storage charges are continuing to accrue. 10. Had the defendants appeared at this assessment I have little doubt they would have been able to reduce the amount they will be ordered to pay very considerably. Their failure to do so may disentitle them to sympathy but does not, on the other hand, entitle the plaintiff to a blank cheque. The survey reports served no purpose and the fees claimed are disallowed totally. I allow half the management fees claimed as, on the evidence, once the ‘management decision' what to do had been made subordinate staff could have carried it out. In the absence of any evidence as to alteratives open to the plaintiff I feel bound to allow the cost of transport to and storage on Lamma Island. 11. The main difficulty is the claim expressed in the Particulars as "Profits of the land lost to the Plaintiff........" but in the Prayers as "Mesne profits of the said premises........". The figures set out, however, show that what the plaintiff is really asking is the rent payable to the Crown for the period access to the land was blocked. Presumably the plaintiff's user of the land is intended to bring a return exceeding the rent, but in the absence of evidence from the plaintiff of that return, and in view of the pleading, I find the basis of the claim under this head not unreasonable. 12. What I do not find so reasonable is the period for which it is claimed. If the plaintiff really had urgent need of the land and if it really set out to clear these obstructions as quickly as possible it should not have taken more than a matter of days. I am not prepared to award more than half the period claimed. 13. My assessment, therefore, against each defendant is as follows:- 1st Defendant
2nd Defendant
14. The defendants will also pay the plaintiff's costs. 15. Dated this 30th day of August 1983.
Representation: J. Szeto, Esq. of Messrs Philip K.H. Wong & Co for the Plaintiff Both Defendants absent and unrepresented |