Lai Hing Wan v. Kowloon Canton Railway Corporation
Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..
1. I delivered judgment in this case on the 7th March but both the plaintiff and the defendant have now drawn my attention to what they consider to be errors and seek amendments to that judgment on the basis that I had given general leave to apply and also under the "slip rule".
|
HCA004338A/1984 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG 1984, No. 4338 BETWEEN
__________ Coram: Hon. Penlington J. A. (sitting as an additional High Court Judge) in Chambers Date of hearing: 13th July, 1988. Date of delivery of judgment: 13th July, 1988. ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1. I delivered judgment in this case on the 7th March but both the plaintiff and the defendant have now drawn my attention to what they consider to be errors and seek amendments to that judgment on the basis that I had given general leave to apply and also under the "slip rule". 2. The plaintiff submits that I should have considered the value of his wife's services both pre-trial and post trial. He relies on dicta of Lord Denning M. R. in Davies v. Borough of Tenby(1). I took a multiplier of 18 for assessing these damages to reflect that fact that the loss would exist beyond the applicant's working life but I am satisfied I should have considered this item as suggested. I therefore make an additional award for the pre-trial loss of the wife's earnings of $2,000 per month for 45 months, less the contributory negligence factor of 20% mating a total of $72,000 which will carry interest at 3½% from 7th June 1984. 3. The defendant points out that it paid for the plaintiff's original artificial limbs and the award 1 made for that should be set aside. That is not contested and I clearly have made an error which can be corrected. $7,000 will be deducted from the award of $22,000 for that item. 4. It is also submitted that there is an error in the assessment of the pre-trial loss of earnings. I took a figure of $3,600, including fringe benefits but that should have been $3,000, which was the evidence of his employer and the applicant himself. That seems to be correct and the mean figure for the pre-trial period should be $3,700 not $4,000 p.m. This means that the amount awarded under this head is reduced by $300 x60 = $18,000, giving a final figure of $206,000 instead of $222,000. 5. The judgment is amended accordingly. 6. Each party to have its costs of these applications. The plaintiff's costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Lid Regulations.
(1) [1974] 2 L.L.R. 469 Representation: M. Bharwaney (Tong & Tsoi) for Plaintiff Miss V. A. Hartstein, Senior Crown Counsel for Defendant |