Wan Leung-hoi v. Lau Shung-chak

DCCJ000124/1977

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT KOWLOON

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 124 OF 1977

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

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

Coram: B.L. Jones, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 7th June, 1977.

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The deceased a boy aged nine years died on the 16th May, 1975 as a result of injuries suffered in a road traffic accident that occurred the previous day. Liability for the accident was admitted by the defendant at the hearing.

2. Funeral expenses have been agreed at the sum of $4,080.

3. The only matter in dispute is the amount of damages to be awarded for loss of expectation of life under the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance Cap. 23.

4. Mr. Poon who appeared for the plaintiff submitted that the figure to be awarded should be $10,000, whereas Mr. Lo for the defendant urged me to award $8,000.

5. It is clear that in awards made from 1970 until 1974 damages for loss of expectation of life have generally been assessed at either $7,500 or $8,000. Briggs J. (as he then was) adopted the conventional sum of $8,000 in CHAN Yuk-sum v. WONG Pai-kwan and another⁽¹⁾.

6. However, in POON Siu-chun v. LEE Yo-lup and another⁽²⁾ Mr. Commissioner Yang (as he then was) awarded $10,000 on the 7th February, 1975 in order to take into account inflation since 1967 when he cited Huggins J. in WONG Kam-ying and another v. MAN Chi-tai⁽³⁾ who made an award of $7,500.

7. In LEE Shuet-ling and LEE Hon-sang Administratrix and Co-administrator of the Estate of KO Chin-kee deceased v. LAI Ming-leung and Brisbane Michael Meerary⁽⁴⁾ Morley-John J. also awarded $10,000 under this head.

8. In three High Court assessments heard by the Registrars this year two awards of $10,000 were made, and one award of $9,000.

9. On the other hand Cons J. in WONG Chi-on v. YUEN Tin-fat⁽⁵⁾, heard earlier this year, awarded $8,000.

10. In Yorkshire Electricity Board v. Naylor⁽⁶⁾ Lord Upjohn at page 13 said:

"Over the years the conventional sum to be awarded for such head of damage rises no doubt, but by fits and by starts rather than by any estimation of the purchasing power of the pound, and in my view so it should be. This is a matter which is better and safely left to the experience and common sense of judges who day by day have to judge of these matters.".

11. The conventional sum of £500 awarded in Yorkshire Electricity Board v. Naylor⁽⁶⁾ was increased by the Court of Appeal in Mc Cann v. Sheppard⁽⁷⁾ to £750.

12. £750 is now the conventional figure awarded in England.

13. Having regard to the recent awards of $10,000 to which I have referred and following the principles enunciated by the House of Lords in Yorkshire Electricity Board v. Naylor⁽⁶⁾ I am of the opinion that the present conventional figure to award in Hong Kong for loss of expectation of life is $10,000.

14. Accordingly I assess damages under this head at $10,000.

15. The total award of damages is therefore $14,080 and there will be judgment for this sum in favour of the plaintiff.

16. On the 15th April, 1977 item 1 and paragraph 1 of item 4 in the Schedule to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Ordinance, which provides for the mandatory award of interest on damages exceeding $3,000 unless there are special reasons to the contrary, came into effect. This follows the law introduced in England by the Administration of Justice Act 1969.

17. Over the past few years it has been the practice of the court to exercise its discretionary power to award interest on damages in personal injury and fatal accident cases. Such interest has been awarded in accordance with the principles enunciated in Jefford v. Gee⁽⁸⁾.

18. Because of continuing inflation the Court of Appeal in England in Cookson v. Knowles⁽⁹⁾ have altered the guidelines set out in Jefford v. Gee⁽⁸⁾. It was held that the award should be divided into two parts:

(1) the pecuniary loss up to the date of trial on which interest should run at half rate;

(2) the pecuniary loss from the date of trial onwards on which no interest should be awarded.

This is also in accord with the recommendations of the Law Commission Working Paper No. 66 paragraph 117.

19. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the same principles should apply in Hong Kong.

20. Accordingly there will be interest on the sum of $4,080 at 4% from the 16th May, 1975 until to-day, but no interest on the award of $10,000.

21. Costs to the plaintiff on the upper scale. There will also be the usual taxation in accordance with the Legal Aid (Scale of Fees) Regulations.

22. Dated this 7th day of June, 1977.

Representation:

Mr. Poon of W.K. Poon for plaintiff.

Mr. Lo of Vincent Lo & Co. for defendant.

(1) (1973) H.K.L.R. 250

(2) O.J.A. 1283/1974

(3) (1967) H.K.L.R. 201

(4) O.J.A. 2339/1974

(5) O.J.A. 1120/1974

(6) (1967) 2 All E.R. 1

(7) (1973) 1 W.L.R. 540

(8) (1970) 2 Q.B.D. 130

(9) The Times 26 May 1977