Wong Chung Yuen v. Mandarin Greens Manufacturing Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 1694/1992 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. On 29 December, 1990, a motor car being driven by an agent of the Plaintiff was involved in a collision with a vehicle owned by the 1st Defendant, and driven by its agent or servant the 2nd Defendant. There were no in juries, but the Plaintiff's motor car was badly damaged due to colliding with the other vehicle and then hitting iron railings. The 2nd Defendant was subsequently convicted of careless driving.
|
HCA001694/1992
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT
Coram: Master Jennings, in Court Plaintiff: Mr. Lee Tung Ming instructed by Leung Kin & Co. Defendants: absent Date of hearing: 12 July, 1996 Date of Delivery of decision on Assessment: 22 July, 1996 --------------------------------------------------- ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES --------------------------------------------------- 1. On 29 December, 1990, a motor car being driven by an agent of the Plaintiff was involved in a collision with a vehicle owned by the 1st Defendant, and driven by its agent or servant the 2nd Defendant. There were no in juries, but the Plaintiff's motor car was badly damaged due to colliding with the other vehicle and then hitting iron railings. The 2nd Defendant was subsequently convicted of careless driving. 2. The writ was issued in March, 1992. Solicitors then acting for both Defendants filed a defence, but later ceased to act. On 15 November, 1995, a Judge ordered that the defence be struck out, and judgment be entered for the Plaintiff, the Defendants having failed to comply with an Order requiring provision of information at a check-list hearing. Interlocutory Judgment was entered accordingly on 21 December for damages to be assessed. 3. After the collision, the Plaintiff's car was towed to a garage. It then sat there until 6 November, 1991, when it was purchased for $15,000, the Plaintiff having been told as early as 11 February by surveyors that the vehicle should be regarded as a total loss. 4. Damages were sought under a number of heads, of which 2 caused me difficulty, namely a claim for daily parking charges at the garage between the collision and the sale, and a claim for use of taxis by the Plaintiff from the collision until he eventually bought a replacement vehicle. 5. As regards the parking charges, the Plaintiff told me that he had not been told that they would be charged until he got the bill. The garage charged $100 per day at first. and then $150 per day, a total of 311 days and $36,000. The Plaintiff's explanation for the long delay before he sold the vehicle was that he was waiting to hear from the Defendant's insurance company about compensation. However, he was told by the insurance company that the accident had not been reported to them. The Plaintiff then awaited hearing from the Defendants, thinking they may wish to see his vehicle. The Plaintiff said this was his was his first experience of an accident, and he evidently took no advice as to how he should proceed. In the event, he sold the vehicle before hearing from the Defendants. In my opinion, he should have sold the vehicle as soon as he learned that it was a total loss. I am satisfied that it could have been sold by the end of February, 1991. I shall allow under this head 60 days parking fees at $100 per day. 6. The Plaintiff did not buy a replacement vehicle until 4 August, 1992. During this period he told me that he was getting to and from work by taxi at a cost of $100 per day. The claim for 583 days amounts to $58,300! In his witness statement made over a year ago, the Plaintiff explained the delay by saying that up to November, 1991, he was "still troubled by the disposal of the said vehicle..... subsequently I needed some time to chose a car which suited my taste". It must have been obvious that this explanation would find little sympathy, In evidence, the Plaintiff told me that a further reason was that he hadn't had the money to buy a vehicle. This assertion was entirely unsupported by any evidence as to his means during the relevant period. I am not prepared to award damages under this head for any longer period than the parking fees. 7. I award the following sums as damages:
8. This litigation has been conducted in a dilatory manner, with long periods when little or nothing was being done. In my view, this simple case could have been dealt with from start to finish in 18 months. I allow interest at judgment rate for the period of 18 months following the issue of the writ. 9. Costs of this assessment to the Plaintiff with certificate for counsel.
Representation: Plaintiff: Mr. Lee Tung Ming instructed by Leung Kin & Co. Defendants: absent |