Tse Wong Hing v. Hak Kan Navigation Co, Sa

Case No.HCAJ 25/1978

Court

HCAJ

Date11 Aug 1979

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAJ000025/1978

Admiralty Action in Personam against Hak Kan Navigation Company, S.A., as owners of the ship "Promoter" (Panamanian Flag)

1978, No. 25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION

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

BETWEEN:
	Tse Wong Hing, administratrix of the estate of Woo Ming Cham, deceased	Plaintiff
	AND
	HAK Kan Navigation Company, S.A.	Defendant

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

Coram: Mr. Registrar Barrington-Jones in Chambers

Date of Judgment: 11 August 1979

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

DECISION

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

1. The Deceased was a radio operator serving on the ship 'Promoter' and was believed drowned when the ship sank on the 5th February, 1977.

2. On the 24th October, 1978 interlocutory judgment was entered for the Plaintiff as the administratrix of the estate of the deceased against the defendant company, with damages to be assessed.

3. This is a claim for damages under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance and Section 20 of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance brought by the Plaintiff on behalf and for the benefit of herself and other members of the deceased's family.

4. The Deceased was aged 27 years at the time of his death, unmarried, and he left:-

	(a)	the Plaintiff, TSE Wong-hing his mother, now aged 50 years;
	(b)	Wu Dok, his father, now aged 63 years;
	(c)	Wu Yu Yan, his younger sister, now aged 16 years;
	(d)	Wu Wang Lap, his younger brother, now aged 9 years; and
	(e)	Kwan Yuk Yung, his grandmother, now aged 78 years, and dependancy is claimed for them.

5. There is no doubt in my mind that the deceased was a dutiful son who always made his home with his family, and contributed substantially towards the family household; and that at the time of his death his monthly contribution to the family household was $1,500.00, that is to say the bulk of his salary.

6. The deceased was in good health before he died, and he would have had some twenty three years of working life remaining, and could have looked forward to being at sea as a radio operator during that period; and with a clean ticket he could, as, Miss. Smith said, have gone from strength to strength. In speculating about what would have been his future, and it can only be speculation, I accept that he would probably have married in due course and would thus have kept more of his income for himself and his own immediate family.

7. After referring to LEUNG Sui-ha v. CHAN Pay-wai 1974 H.K.L.J. 210, WONG Tai v. TANG Chee-yan 1976 H.K.L.J. 133 and WONG Pui-tat v. CHEUNG Chun-yuen and Anr. 1977 H.K.L.J. 284, I have borne in mind that the deceased was a professional man who could have looked forward to a fairly substantial salary as his experience increased. The Deceased would, I am sure, still have been at pains to support his family more particularly bearing in mind the continued ill health of his father. Indeed this might well have resulted in the situation envisaged by Li J., in Wong Pui Tat v. CHEUNG Chun-yuen and Anr. and he might well have regarded his own family as an addition to the older family, even if they had eventually lived apart.

8. Miss. Smith based her calculations on the quantum calculation used in Cookson v. Knowles (1978) 2 All E.R. 604 and Mr. Liu did not differ on this, and I am satisfied that this is the correct approach in a case like this.

9. After considering the evidence of Mr. Kennedy of the Marine Department and Mr. YAN, an official of the Hong Kong Seaman's Union, I accept that the basic salary of the Deceased as at the 5th February, 1977 (date of death) was $1,800.00 and that the dependancy figure from the amount at the same date is $1,500.00. I further accept that the salary of the Deceased as at the date of the assessment would probably have been $3,400.00 of which there would have been a dependancy figure (as at the same date) of $2,700.00. Accordingly, I find that the mean dependancy figure as between the date of death and the date of dependancy is $2,100.00. I am satisfied that the proper multiplier to use here is 10.

The pecuniary loss sustained by the dependants from the date of death until now (the pre-trial loss) can be estimated as follows: 2	1
	3
x 12 x $2,100.00 ($2,100.00 representing the mean dependancy figure) = $58,791.60. As regards the pecuniary loss the dependants will sustain from today onwards (the post trial loss) this is computed, as follows: 7? x 12 x $2,700.00 ($2,700.00 representing the dependancy figure as at the date of dependancy) = $248,378.40. Accordingly the damages assessed under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance are $307,170.00.

10. The conventional award under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance is currently $10,000.00 and this will, of course, merge with the damages assessed under the Fatal Accidents Ordinance.

11. $230,377.50 i.e. 75% of the award must go to the Plaintiff, the Deceased's father and his Grandmother, and insofar as Wu Wang Lap and Wu Yu Yan are concerned they are, I think, entitled respectively to 60% and 40% of the remainder. Subject to any charge the Director may have, the amount awarded to Wu Wang Lap $46,075.50 and $30,717.00 to Wu Yu Yan is to be paid into Court for investment by the Registrar on the usual terms.

12. As to interest in this rather unusual case, this is awarded at the rate of 9% from the 21st February, 1978 until today.

13. Damages in the amount of $230,377.50 are to be paid to the Director of Legal Aid within 14 days, along with $76,792.50 to be paid into Court within the same period.

14. The Plaintiff will have her costs with a certificate of Counsel.

15. The costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

16. Dated this 11th day of August, 1979.

	(J. Barrangton-Jones)
	Ag. Assistant Registrar

Representation:

Miss J.C. Smith (D.L.A.) for Plaintiff.

Mr. Raymond Liu (Messrs. Hon and Co.,) for the Defendant Company.