Lui Chuk v. Ng Chung Wing

Case No.HCA 1909/1970

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCA001909/1970

1970, No. 1909

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

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

BETWEEN
	LUI CHUK, otherwise known as LUI HING CHUK, administrator and LUI BING NG, co-administrator of the Estate of LUI CHAU, otherwise known as LUI YAN CHOW or LUI YEUNG CHOW, deceased	Plaintiffs
	and
	NG CHUNG WING alias ALEXANDER NG Jr.	1st Defendant
	ELIAN CHEUNG SUK WAN	2nd Defendant

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

Coram: Mr. Registrar Silke in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: 5th October, 1973.

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

DECISION

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

1. The plaintiff herein is the administrator of the estate of Lui Chau otherwise known as Lui Yan Chow or Lui Yeung Chow and this is his application for damages to be assessed under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance and the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance in respect of the death of Lui Chau.

2. Lui Chau, a rickshaw puller was on the 30th November 1969 knocked down by a motor vehicle owned by the 1st defendant and driven by the 1st defendant or alternatively by the 2nd defendant as servant or agent of the 1st defendant and as a result of which Lui Chau died on the same day. Interlocutory judgment against the 1st defendant was obtained on the 14th May 1971 in default of defence with damages to be assessed.

3. Interlocutory judgment against the 2nd defendant was entered on the 11th August 1971 in default of appearance with damages to be assessed.

4. There had been a previous notice for assessment that was adjourned sine die on the 20th October 1972 as notice of intention to proceed under Order 3 rule 6 had not been given.

5. The matter came on before me this morning, fresh Notice having been issued and served on both defendants. Neither appeared. The only evidence called was that of the administrator as the widow and children of the deceased are in China.

6. I am in considerable difficulty as to the apportion of the assessment of damages as it appeared in the evidence that there are 4 children of the deceased and not 3 as appeared in the Statement of Claim or appeared in the affidavit grounding the grant of Letters of Administration. I indicated that I would go on to assess what I consider to be the damages in the matter and adjourn the cause generally until the question of the children had been sorted out.

7. The administrator Lui Chuk was present at the marriage of his brother the deceased which took place about 20 years ago at Hoi Fung in the District of Kwangtung Province, China. The name of the wife is Chan Yee and the witness was unsure of the names of the other children except a son Lui Lok Suen. He gave in evidence that the earnings of the deceased, whose sole occupation was that of a rickshaw puller, came to about $500 per month. From this sum approximately $200 per month was sent to China for the support of his wife and family. Apart from this money he also sent a parcel of clothings and some food to the children from time to time. He returned to his native village once every year and he brought with him articles which the witness said would weigh 100 to 200 lbs. The witness said that these would be worth about $1,000 and included rice, goods, clothing and food. The deceased was aged approximately 51 at the time of his death and the witness said that he knew of other rickshaw pullers who have a working expectancy of 70 years of age. He agreed that fewer and fewer people are now occupied in this particular profession. The deceased paid about $10 per month as rent and in 1969 paid about $4 - $5 per day for food.

8. It is on this evidence, which is all I have, that I must base my assessment. The figures, though approximate, do not seem unreasonable. Mr. Cheung who appeared for the plaintiff urged me to take a multiplier of 14. Having taken into consideration the hazards of the deceased's work, his age at the time of death, his general condition of health - which was said to be good - I would think a multiplier of 11 to be appropriate. By evaluating his amount of earnings which he remitted to his family, including the value of the parcels and of the goods brought yearly to them by the deceased I would assess the amount payable to his family at $300 per month, multiplying this by 12 x 11 comes to $39,600.

9. I therefore assess damages under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance at $39,600 less 20% discount for a lump sum payment: $31,680.00.

10. Special damages: The sum of $500 claimed in respect of the rickshaw has been abandoned.

11. The claim for funeral expenses at $1,000 seems reasonable and I shall allow. I note the evidence of the witness as to $2,000 expended but there is nothing to support any figure higher than the $1,000 claimed in the Statement of Claim.

12. I assess damages under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance at the conventional figure of $8,000.00 which will however merge with the $31,680 assessed under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance.

13. On the principles enunciated in Jefford v. Gee (C.A.) 1970 2 Q.B. 146 I shall award the plaintiff interest on the special damages of $1,000 at the rate of 4% from the 30th November 1969, the date of the accident, until today and at 8% on the general damages of $31,680 from the date of service of the writ, the 8th June 1971.

14. I am not in a position to apportion the damages at this juncture and will adjourn this question generally. The plaintiff will have liberty to apply. Costs of this action and of the assessment be to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs' costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid (Scale of Fees) Regulations, Cap. 91.

15. Dated this the 5th day of October, 1973.

	(W.J. Silke)
	Assistant Registrar

Representation: