Fung Kwok Ki v. Wing Sang Construction Co Ltd and Others

HCPI000757/2002

HCPI 757/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO.757 OF 2002

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

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

Coram: Hon Suffiad J in Court

Date of Hearing: 16 July 2003

Date of Judgment: 1 August 2003

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries sustained by him at a construction site on 5 July 2000 when a box of tiles fell on him from a height causing him very severe injuries as a result of which he is now wheelchair bound permanently.

2.The claim is brought against three defendants. The 1st defendant is sued as the contractor at the construction site. However, the 1st defendant has gone into liquidation after the Writ was issued but before the trial took place. Moreover, the insurers of the 1st defendant have denied liability under the policy of insurance taken out by the 1st defendant. Judgment on liability has been entered against the 1st defendant in this matter on 4 November 2002 leaving outstanding the question of assessment of damages only. When the trial came on, the liquidators of the 1st defendant indicated by letter to the court that the 1st defendant will not appear at the trial and will not be legally represented thereat.

3.At the start of the trial, a settlement by agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the 3rd defendant only (who appeared in person). It was agreed between them that the plaintiff would withdraw his claim against the 3rd defendant and that the 3rd defendant agreed to pay cost of $40,000.00 to the plaintiff in respect of this action. An order by consent upon those terms was made. The 3rd defendant therefore dropped out of the picture.

4.That left only the 2nd defendant in so far as the issue of liability was concerned. Prior to the start of the trial before me leave had been granted by the Master to the 2nd defendant for it to be represented by Mr Chan Chit Yuen one of its directors. Mr Chan Chit Yuen was present at the start of the trial but indicated to the court that his presence in court was only to observe the proceedings and that he will not be taking any active part in the proceedings. After the morning adjournment, however, Mr Chan chose to absent himself from the court taking no further part in the proceedings at all.

LIABILITY

5.The question of liability in this case relates therefore only to the 2nd defendant in this matter.

6.By reason of his injuries, the plaintiff was not in a position to give any evidence relating to how the accident occurred.

7.On the issue of liability the plaintiff relies solely on the findings made in the Accident Report of the Occupational Safety Officer Leung Wai Kit. That report has been adduced into evidence and there is nothing to dispute or challenge its contents. From that report, the following facts relating to the accident is apparent.

8.The 1st defendant was the contractor responsible for the construction of a 21-storey building at Nos.33-37 Yin Chong Street in Kowloon ("the site").

9.The 1st defendant sub-contracted the hoist installation and operation works to the 2nd defendant.

10.On 5 July 2000, building material were being lifted by hoist from the ground floor of the site to the upper floors for use in the construction works. Some of that building material were tiles packed in boxes. The boxes of tiles were stacked on a wheelbarrow which was then placed on the platform of the hoist. One worker was responsible for loading the boxes of tiles on the ground floor onto the hoist and another worker responsible to unload them on the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floors.

11.At around 2.45 p.m. on that day, metal cable trunkings for lift installation were delivered to the site by vehicle. That vehicle stopped outside the site entrance. A number of persons including the plaintiff proceeded to transport the metal cable trunkings from the vehicle into the site. The trunkings were then stacked near the hoist being used for transportation of building material.

12.While the plaintiff was carrying out the work of transporting the trunkings and when he was near the hoistway on the ground floor, a box of tiles fell onto the plaintiff. At the time the plaintiff was wearing a safety helmet. However, due to the weight of the box of tiles, the plaintiff fainted and lost consciousness after he was hit by that box of tiles. Immediately the hoist operation stopped and the hoist was suspended between the 8th and 9th floors.

13.The investigators into the accident made the following factual findings contained in the report :

(a) broken tiles were found scattered over the open area on the ground floor near the hoist;

(b) the size of one box of tiles was 305 mm (L), 305 mm (W) and 185 mm (H);

(c) wooden boards were used to form a platform for the hoist. The platform measured 1.4 m x 1.4 m;

(d) 56, 53, 53 and 21 boxes of tiles were found on the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th floors respectively of the building under construction;

(e) nylon sheets were used to enclose the hoistway but gaps in the nylon sheets could be observed between the 5th and 6th floors and also the 7th floor;

(f) blood stains were found on the helmet worn by the plaintiff as well as on the ground;

(g) the hoist in question was tested by Registered Professional Engineers before the accident on 26 April and on 30 June that same year and found to be in safe working condition;

(h) the hoist was fitted with effective interlocking devices to keep all the gates closed when the hoist was in motion;

(i) no warning notice was posted to warn or prohibit workers not to work near the material hoist at ground floor when the hoist was in use. That same area was not fenced off and there was no restriction for workers to enter that area when the hoist was in use;

(j) access to the hoist platform whilst the hoist was in motion was not possible from any floor;

(k) the worker responsible for loading the boxes of tiles onto the hoist on the ground floor stated in his statement that he had loaded eight boxes of tiles stacked on a wheelbarrow onto the hoist platform for that last journey to the 9th floor before the accident occurred;

(l) When police arrived at the scene for investigation, the hoist operator was asked to bring the hoist (which had been suspended between the 8th and 9th floors after the accident occurred) back down onto the ground floor. When that was done, it was found that the wheelbarrow on the hoist platform had only seven boxes of tiles on it;

(m) although no one witnessed how the plaintiff came to be injured, one of the workers saw broken tiles flying in the air when he heard a "bang" sound. Broken tiles and pieces of the cardboard box were found scattered over the area where the plaintiff laid unconscious when there were no broken tiles there before the plaintiff was injured;

(n) three sides of the platform of the hoist was not enclosed although the fourth side of the platform was enclosed by a pair of swing doors.

14.Having observed for themselves the wheelbarrow in used to hold the eight boxes of tiles on the platform of the hoist, the investigators were of the view that wheelbarrow could not properly enclose all the eight boxes of tiles placed in it and that the box at the top layer of the wheelbarrow could easily fall off from the wheelbarrow.

15.In the absence of any challenge or dispute to the findings of the investigators into this accident, I have no hesitation accepting all the facts and the matters observed by the investigators at the scene of the accident. From these facts I find that most likely one of the eight boxes of tiles placed on the wheelbarrow which was being transported by the hoist from the ground floor to the 9th floor fell off the wheelbarrow and also fell off the platform of the hoist due to the fact that three sides of that platform were not properly enclosed. It is also likely that that box of tiles further fell through one of the gaps in the nylon sheeting covering the hoistway and then hit the plaintiff as he was carrying out his work on the ground floor of the site in the vicinity of that hoist.

16.The 2nd defendant has admitted in paragraph 2(b) of its Defence that it was the subcontractor for the installation and operation of the hoist in question.

17.In the circumstances, and on the basis of the above finding as to how this accident happened, there can be no doubt but that the 2nd defendant is liable to the plaintiff for this accident for negligence in failing to ensure that the platform of the hoist was properly enclosed on three of its sides and also failing to ensure that the hoistway was properly enclosed with firm and strong material to prevent falling objects from falling outside of the hoistway.

18.There can be no question of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff and indeed that has not been pleaded by the 2nd defendant in its Defence.

QUANTUM

Injuries and treatment

19.The plaintiff was admitted into the Accident and Emergency Department of Kwong Wah Hospital immediately after the accident on 5 July 2000. He suffered contusion injuries to his head, neck and front chest wall. He was unconscious when admitted to hospital. He was in deep coma with Glasgow Coma Score of 3/15. Physical examination showed tetraplegia with signs of complete spinal cord injury. Resuscitation was carried out. He was given intubation, intravenous infusion, neck collar and spine board. The clinical diagnosis was head injury, thoracic spinal injury with paralysis and fracture of left femur. He was admitted to Intensive Care Unit under orthopaedic department for further management.

20.The plaintiff stayed in ICU until 24 July and had internal fixation of his spine and left femur.

21.He was discharged to the general ward on 24 July but remained in vegetative state with Glasgow Coma Score of 7/15. He had paraplegia and his left upper limb was weaker than the right. He developed severe back sore problem. He received multiple debridement to his sores without much improvement. Orthopaedic surgeons performed Gluteal maximus myocutaneous flap on him on 25 October 2000. However, the surgical wound broke down later and he was treated with frequent dressings and debridements with gradual improvement.

22.His conscious level improved to Glasgow Coma Score of 12 - 13/15, but he remained paraplegic and dysphasic. As his condition was stable, he was transferred to Wong Tai Sin Hospital for further rehabilitation on 13 July 2001. By that time he could say his name and hold a newspaper with his upper limbs. His lower limbs remained powerless and his surgical wound continue to improve.

23.In August 2001, he was transferred back to Kwong Wah Hospital Orthopaedic Department for his triggering contracted left middle finger. Percutaneous release was done on 3 September 2001. The operation was smooth and he could make full fist and extend his fingers after the operation. His pressure sores improved but had not healed up yet.

24.On 15 February 2002, he was moved to Kowloon Hospital for another period of rehabilitation and speech therapy before being finally discharged home on 26 April 2002.

25.After a prolonged period of surgical and medical treatment, the plaintiff has made a partial recovery and is left with permanent residual brain damage in the form of impaired higher mental functions including dysarthria, dysphagia and mild upper limb dysfunction. There is also no recovery of his paraplegia with double incontinence.

26.His neurogenic urinary and bowel disturbance are caused by the spinal cord damage at T7 level, and like his paraplegia, will be permanent.

27.Moreover, the plaintiff has a neuropathic bladder with poor or uncoordinated detrusor contraction and without any sensation of filling or distension. He is being managed by Clean Intermittent Catheterisation five times daily.

28.His bowel problem needs to have continued management with laxative and suppositories. His neuropathic impotence is permanent. The percentage of permanent impairment is a combined total of 92% of the whole person. He is now permanently wheelchair-bound.

Pain, suffering and loss of amenities

29.There can be little question but that the plaintiff, in the circumstances described above, falls into the upper end of the "gross disability" category and the lower end of the "disaster" category.

30.Based on the local awards relating to such injuries cited to me by counsel, a reasonable compensation under this head of damage will be $1,500,000.00 and that will be the award assessed under this head of damage.

Pre-trial loss of earnings

31.At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was a lift Technician II employed by Ryoden Elevator Co. Ltd. The pre-accident earnings of the plaintiff is stated in the Form 2 submitted by Ryoden Elevator Co. Ltd to be $18,586.18 per month being the average for the past 12 months before the accident.

32.There can be no dispute but that the plaintiff has suffered full loss of earnings in this case as he will not be able to return to any form of employment as a result of his injuries.

33.Total loss of earnings for the 36 months from the date of accident comes to $669,096.00.

34.MPF came into force in Hong Kong in December 2000. The loss of MPF for the 31 months to date will be 5% of his monthly income. This comes to $28,808.00.

35.The combined total of both comes to $697,904.00.

Pre-trial medical expenses

36.A total sum of $46,285.00 is claimed under this head. The amount claimed are all supported by documentary receipts from the various government hospitals concerned. The claimed amount will be allowed in full.

Pre-trial travelling expenses

37.$25,666.00 is claimed under this head. The majority of the travelling claimed is in relation to the plaintiff's wife and son visiting him while he was in hospital and is based on their travelling by bus and MTR. Taxi fares for such visit was claimed only for the first month that the plaintiff was hospitalized and also for four trips in April and June of 2002. On one occasion a car had to be rented to take the plaintiff from Kowloon Hospital to Tseung Kwan O Hospital.

38.Looking at the breakdown for what is claimed, there does not appear to me to have been any excessive use of taxi claimed by the plaintiff. I am satisfied that what has been claimed is reasonable and will allow the claimed amount in full under this head.

Pre-trial miscellaneous expenses

39.The claim under this heading is sub-divided into cost of aids and equipments, cost of consumables and the cost of a domestic helper who was engaged from 18 November 2001.

40.The claim for costs of aids and equipments relate to five items of equipment (wheelchair, powered lift, shower commode with accessories, ripple mattress, wheelchair cushion), the cost of widening of the toilet floor and cost of fitting of the plaintiff's bedroom. These five items of equipment as well as the widening of the toilet floor was advised by experts as being necessary to the plaintiff. Moreover, all the items claimed were supported by documentary receipts showing that the expenses had already been incurred except for the cost of fitting of the plaintiff's bedroom. The amount claimed for that item is $1,304.00 and I am told that it was for the installation of handrails. That appears to me to be a reasonable amount incurred and necessary.

41.However, from the receipts produced, I notice that the claim for the ripple mattress was for $1,980.00 when in fact a discount of $99.00 had been given for that item so that only $1,881.00 was charged. Accordingly the cost of aids and equipment will be allowed as claimed but less $99.00. That sub-total comes to $46,165.00.

42.As for the consumables claimed, the medical consumables claimed at $8,969.00 and diapers at $6,217.00 appear to be reasonable amounts considering that it has been three years since the accident. The daily consumables is claimed at $19,000.00 for the entire pre-trial period. There will necessarily be some overlap in that most of these items will have been used by the plaintiff even if the accident had not occurred. What can be claimed should only be the extra items of daily consumables that has to be used by the plaintiff because of the accident. To take account of the overlap, the amount allowed will be assessed at $15,000.00.

43.There is also a claim for tonic food in the sum of $20,000.00. Considering the severity of the injuries, over a three-year period, this appears to be a reasonable amount claimed for tonic food and will be allowed.

44.The cost of domestic helper is claimed at $96,000.00. Such a domestic helper was engaged from 8 November 2001. Although the plaintiff was not discharged home from hospital until April 2002 it cannot be unreasonable that a domestic helper was engaged some five months before his discharge in order to ease the burden on his wife who had to visit the plaintiff in hospital, take care of the housework and look after their young son.

45.The claim for the domestic helper is based on $4,200.00 per month which takes into account not only her salary but also the wages in lieu of holiday and food supplied. The claimed amount of $96,000.00 will be allowed in full.

46.The total amount assessed under these three sub-heads therefore comes to $192,351.00.

Value of wife's services

47.The plaintiff claims an amount of $270,000.00 as representing the value of his wife's services in looking after him for the full three years since the accident. This claim is based on her services valued at $7,500.00 per month.

48.Prior to the accident the plaintiff's wife was a full time housewife.

49.Whilst accepting that there are authorities and precedents allowing for a claim for the wife's services for taking care of and looking after an injured plaintiff, I also note that in this case a domestic helper was engaged to ease the wife's burden in that respect in November 2001 and the expenses for engaging such a domestic helper has already been included in the pre-trial miscellaneous expenses claimed.

50.It would be reasonable therefore to allow the claim for value of the wife's services but only limited to the 16 months before the domestic helper was engaged. $7,500.00 is a reasonable estimate for the services by the wife. Accordingly I shall allow $174,000.00 under this head of claim.

Future loss of earnings

51.There can be no dispute but that the plaintiff in his present condition which is more or less permanent will never be able to work again. There should therefore be full loss of future earnings.

52.I shall adopt the same amount of his pre-accident earnings of $18,586.00 as the multiplicand.

53.As for the multiplier, it was suggested by counsel for the plaintiff that a multiplier of 14 should be used.

54.The plaintiff was 38 years at the time of the accident and 41 years at trial. His pre-accident occupation was a lift Technician II. He is married and lives with his wife and a son now aged 6. It is likely that he would be able to work up to aged 60 which would be for a further 19 years. By that time his son would be 25 years old and likely to be just starting out life on his own. While the pre-accident work of the plaintiff cannot be said to be heavy manual work, on the other hand, it is not the lightest type of work either.

55.Looking at the table of multipliers conveniently compiled by counsel for the plaintiff from past local decisions it can be seen that the multipliers adopted for loss of future earnings for a 41-year-old at trial ranges from between 10 to 14.

56.In all the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that a reasonable multiplier to adopt would be 12 for loss of future earnings.

57.Accordingly, I assess the total loss of future earnings to be $2,676,384.00.

Future medical and nursing care

58.The claim for future expenses of the plaintiff is premissed on a multiplier of 18. This in turn is based on Dr Yu Yuk Ling's estimate of the plaintiff's life expectancy. On the available medical literature and in the light of the level of spinal cord injury and its severity a life expectancy of 29 years is suggested. However, Dr Yu takes the view that his life expectancy would probably be longer than 29 due to his health and if he receives quality care. Dr Yu estimates that his life expectancy will be nearer that for the normal male population in Hong Kong which, in the case of the plaintiff, will be 38. This opinion of Dr Yu was given over a year ago when the plaintiff was 40 years old.

59.While I have some reservation as to Dr Yu's opinion that the plaintiff can have a life expectancy of 38 since he, in the light of his injuries, can hardly come within the category of 'normal male population' even if he receives quality care, I do accept that he may have a life expectancy of over 29 but possibly not very much more.

60.In the circumstances, I am of the view that a multiplier of 16 for future expenses will be reasonable in this case.

61.In so far as the individual items claimed under this head of damage is concerned, I have dealt with them in a table form annexed to this judgment as Schedule A. Much of the items assessed has been reduced from what was claimed due to the reduced multiplier. The only one item which I need to deal with in some detail under this head of damage is the claim for Assistance at Home.

62.There are three items claimed for the Assistance at Home. Firstly a claim for a day-time China trained nurse (total claimed $2,592,000.00); secondly a claim for a full time live in domestic helper (total claimed $1,404,000.00) and thirdly a claim for the wife's services (total claimed $1,620,000.00). All three of these items claimed are based on a multiplier of 18.

63.I accept that it is reasonable for a full time domestic helper to be engaged as suggested by the experts. I also accept as reasonable the multiplicand of $78,000.00 per year which covers salary, food, annual insurance and home leave every two years. The multiplier will be reduced to 16 for the reason given above. The assessment for this item comes to $1,248,000.00.

64.As for the China trained nurse, I note that this was not initially recommended by Ms Shelley Chow. It was as a result of further queries by the plaintiff's solicitors after her initial report that she gave the estimate cost of a China trained nurse in her supplemental report. That query by the plaintiff's solicitors was made as a result of what was advised by the urologist Dr Koo who was of the opinion that a day time China trained nurse, capable of doing the intermittent catheterisation, transfer and hygenic care for paraplegic patient, is also desirable for six days a week to allow Mrs Fung to be out of the home for a longer period of time during the day, and allowing her to have some free time of her own.

65.Despite that advice from Dr Koo, Ms Shelley Chow in her second report suggests two live in domestic helpers rather than a China trained nurse if it is thought preferable to have two caregivers, one of whom with a nursing background. She further advises that the two helpers can be trained in the care tasks required and supported by the community nurse as recommended by her.

66.This is a reasonable suggestion and by far more economical than to have a permanent day-time China trained nurse.

67.Accordingly instead of a China trained nurse, I shall assess a further sum of $1,248,000.00 for a second domestic helper.

68.Lastly as for the claim for value of the wife's services are concerned, for the same reason that I have only allowed 16 months of the wife's services under pre-trial expenses, I shall disallow this claim in its entirety.

69.Therefore inclusive of what has been assessed as per the Schedule A attached to this judgment, the total sum assessed under this head of damage comes to $3,363,200.00.

Future transportation expenses

70.Future transportation expenses is claimed at $2,000.00 per month.

71.At present the plaintiff has to travel to Tseung Kwan O Hospital for his follow ups. He makes use of the ambulance service offered by NEATS (Nethersole Eastern Ambulance Transfer Service).

72.In the condition that he is in, the experts advise that he should register himself with REHAB bus services. In due course some of his travels on the road will be for social outings. All this will cost money.

73.Ms Shelley Chow has estimated that his travel expenses may come to $2,000.00 per month which is the basis of the multiplicand for this head of claim. I am of the view that the multiplicand is a reasonable one given the circumstances.

74.As for the multiplier, I will adopt the same multiplier of 16 for future expenses for this head of claim. According I assess the future transportation expenses to be $384,000.00.

Accommodation and related expenses

75.The plaintiff is at present living with his family in a Home Ownership Scheme unit in Beverly Garden in Tseung Kwan O. The area of the unit is 420 square feet. The experts have advised that the plaintiff, in his present condition being wheelchair bound, requires bigger accommodation to convenience his moving about at home amongst other things. That is reasonable since his wheelchair takes up much more space than would a normal person.

76.I have been provided with a list of prices relating to units of varying sizes from the Midland Realty website. Confining myself to units of about 900 square feet, I note that the asking prices of the rental value from that list ranges from between $13,000.00 per month to $17,000.00 per month. In view of the fact that all the prices on the list reflect the asking prices of the landlords, I shall take the lowest from that range as the basis for assessing alternative accommodation.

77.From that basis of $13,000.00 per month will need to be deducted the notional rental value of the plaintiff's present living expenses. I will use the $3,000.00 suggested by the plaintiff as being that notional rental value.

78.Once again using 16 as the multiplier, the rental expenses for alternative accommodation comes to $120,000.00 x 16 which gives $1,920,000.00.

79.There will be other incidental expenses as well.

80.There will necessarily be agency fee. This should be a one-off payment estimated to be about $8,000.00 by the plaintiff's counsel. That seems a reasonable amount. However, it is normal for the agency fee to be shared by the landlord and the tenant jointly. I will therefore allow $4,000.00 in this respect.

81.On the basis that a tenancy agreement will be for a term of a two-year-period, and estimating that the legal cost of a tenancy agreement together with stamp duty comes to $3,000.00, this will mean a further $24,000.00. It is common knowledge that very often in Hong Kong the legal cost of the tenancy and stamp duty are borne by the tenant wholly.

82.At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiff conceded that management fees and rates will likely be included in the rental and declined to pursue the claim for those two items.

83.I will further allow $5,000.00 as being removal expenses on the basis that in the next 16 years, the plaintiff may, for one reason or another, have to move from one rental premises to another. On the basis that he will need to move twice during that period, the total amount assessed for removal works out to be $10,000.00.

84.Alteration of the new accommodation is claimed at $200,000.00 per occasion. On the same basis that the plaintiff will have to move twice, I will allow $400,000.00. Included in this amount should be the cost of adaptation of the new premises for the plaintiff's special needs.

85.Therefore the total amount assessed under this head comes to $2,358,000.00.

Aids, equipment and other recurrent expenses

86.I have assessed an amount of $867,576.00 under this head of damage as per the Schedule B attached to this judgment. That schedule follows the numbering of the various items claimed in the Revised Statement of Damages under this head of claim.

87.Most of the items had been adjusted downwards to reflect the use of a multiplier of 16 (for the reasons given above) as opposed to the claimed multiplier of 18 used by the plaintiff.

Future DIY expenses

88.The plaintiff claims $36,000.00 under this head on the basis that the plaintiff, being the only man in the family, (discounting his son now only six years) would, but for the accident, have taken upon himself the minor odd jobs in the house that needs to be done. In his present condition he will not be able to do those odd jobs and a handy man will have to be engaged and paid.

89.The amount claimed is based on a multiplicand of $2,000.00 annual payment to the handyman. Whilst this multiplicand appears reasonable, the multiplier will again (as above) be adjusted down to 16 to give $32,000.00 under this head of claim.

Social membership expenses

90.Cost of participating in group social events is claimed at $45,000.00 based on an estimated annual cost of $2,500.00.

91.The annual cost estimated is not unreasonable but the multiplier will be reduced to 16 (for same reasons given above). The assessed amount under this head is therefore $40,000.00.

Loss of society

92.Lastly, I shall allow the statutory amount of $150,000.00 for loss of society of the plaintiff by his wife in view of the condition the plaintiff is now in and which is permanent.

Interests

93.Interests will be awarded for general damages for pain suffering and loss of amenities at 2% p.a. from the date of the Writ.

94.Interests on all pre-trial claims will be awarded at 4% (being half judgment rate) from the date of the accident.

Summary

PSLA		$1,500,000.00
Pre-trial loss
	Loss of earnings	$697,904.00
	Medical expenses	$46,285.00
	Travelling	$25,666.00
	Miscellaneous	$192,351.00
	Value of wife's services	$174,000.00
Future loss/expenses
	Loss of earnings	$2,676,384.00
	Medical and nursing	$3,363,200.00
	Transportation	$384,000.00
	Accommodation	$2,358,000.00
	Aids and equipment	$867,576.00
	DIY expenses	$32,000.00
	Membership	$40,000.00
	Loss of society	$150,000.00
Interest
	PSLA	$25,000.00
	Pre-trial loss	$136,345.00
	Sub-total:	$12,668,711.00
	Less ECC amount received	$2,318,964.00
	Total:	$10,349,747.00

CONCLUSION

95.There will accordingly be judgment against the 1st and 2nd defendants for $10,349,747.00 jointly and severally.

COSTS

96.There will a cost order nisi that the 2nd defendants do pay the plaintiff his costs of this action on the issue of liability and that the 1st and 2nd defendants do jointly and severally pay the plaintiff's cost in relation to the assessment of damages, such costs to be taxed if not agreed. The plaintiff's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.

Representation:

Mr Kam Cheung, instructed by Messrs Or, Ng & Chan, for the Plaintiff

The 1st Defendant in person, absent

The 2nd Defendant in person

The 3rd Defendant in person

Schedule A

COST OF FUTURE MEDICAL AND NURSING CARE

Schedule B

AIDS EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RECURRING EXPENSES