Yau Fook Hong Company Limited and Another v. Lam Chee Ho and Another

HCA003349/1984

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

BETWEEN

Coram: Master Crawshaw in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 11th February, 1985

Date of Delivery: 1st March, 1985

__________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

__________________________

1. This is an assessment of damages concerning a contract for the sale of land at or near the height of the property boom in 1981. The Plaintiffs, upon the defendants' defaulting, rescinded the contract and regained possession.

2. Only Madam Lau Hang Fong appeared at the hearing and at the close she told me that while she was quite prepared to lose the premises, she could not afford to pay any damages, and this was her attitude throughout the hearing. Hence the Plaintiff's witnesses went largely unchallenged by her.

3. So far as the Plaintiff's figures for loss of their bargain go the matter is quite straightforward.

There is a claim for $2,500 per month for "wrongful occupation" from 1st February, 1984 - 19th November, 1984 being the dates on which the Defendants ceased paying their instalments and the Bailiff recovered possession respectively. The only problem is whether the Plaintiffs were a little lax in exerting their strict rights under this head of damages for trespass and the date on which with that trespass began.

4. On the 9th March, 1984 a notice was sent demanding arrears of instalments for February, 1984 and March, 1984 with interest, and warning of the consequences of failure. No such payment having been made the plaintiffs' solicitors on the 1st, May 1984 "as a result of the Defendants default" rescinded the agreement without prejudice to their existing rights.

5. By their evidence the Plaintiffs apparently have waived their claim for arrears of instalments between 1 February, 1984 and 30th April, 1984 and purport to date back the wrongful occupation to l February, 1984. To my mind the date the wrongful occupation began is the date the Plaintiffs expressed it to begin, that is the 1st May, 1984, but this is of little practical consequence because I consider that a 6 months period should suffice to enable the Plaintiffs to enforce their rights and recover possession. I therefore allow 6 months x $2,500 under this head of claim.

6. There will be interest at % from date of service of writ until judgment and thereafter at % until payment.

Plaintiffs will have the costs of the action.

Representation:

Defendant Lau Hang Fong appearing in person