Limbu Ramesh v. Chu Fung Man

HCPI 192/2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINSTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 192 OF 2005

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

Between

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

Coram :  Master Roy Yu

Trial Dates :  17^th & 20^th March 2006

Handing Down Judgment :  28^th April 2006

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

1.The Plaintiff is Nepalese by nationality.  He is now a Hong Kong permanent resident and has been working here since 1995.  He is 36 years of age at the time of the trial.  The Plaintiff was injured in a traffic accident and he brings this action to recover his loss.  Liability has been admitted and the hearing before me is assessment of damages.

The Accident

2.The Plaintiff has been working as concreter and construction site worker in Hong Kong.  Just before the accident, the Plaintiff was employed by Chun Wo Construction & Engineering Co., Ltd. as a labour, doing road maintenance work.  On 27^th May 2002, the Plaintiff was working at a site of his employer at Ting Kau Bridge, Kowloon.  The Defendant drove a car and hit a roadblock or an object on the side of the road which struck the Plaintiff on his head, knocking him unconscious for about 2 hours. 

Treatment from Hospital and sick leaves

3.After the accident, the Plaintiff was sent to Yan Chai Hospital and immediately transferred to Princess Margaret Hospital for treatment.  According to the report from Princess Margaret Hospital date 6^th December 2003, “[the Plaintiff] was admitted to the Department of Neurosurgery, Princess Margaret Hospital at 17:59 on 27^th May 2002.  According to the hospital record, a car hit a roadblock which in turn hit his head in the afternoon on the same day.  He had lost consciousness for two hours and he complained of headache on admission.  On physical examination he was fully conscious and alert.  There was mild abrasion over left forehead.  The range of movement of his neck was full and there is no tenderness over his back of his head.  X ray skull and cervical spine did not show any fracture and any dislocation.  He was discharged subsequently.”

4.The Plaintiff was hospitalized for a day and was discharged the next day.  No operation or special treatment is recorded.  He was granted sick leave until 1^st June 2002.  He attended the Hospital again on 3^rd June 2002 and was granted sick leave until 6^th June.  On 7^th June 2002, he returned to work with the same employer. 

5.According to the Plaintiff, he was assigned light duty by his employer, such as acting as a signalman for the traffic.  After working for 2 to 3 days, the Plaintiff said he could not work any longer as he suffered from severe headache.  He returned to the Princess Margaret Hospital for treatment and was granted sick leave until 16^th June 2002.  He then returned to work again.

6.The Plaintiff attended the Hospital for treatment on 25^th June 2002 and was given sick leave up to 9^th July.  As now a usual pattern, he returned to work until 23^rd July when he went to the Hospital for treatment.  He complained of persistent headache, dizziness and neck pain.  According to the medical report of Prince Margaret Hospital, no abnormality was found on examination.  CT brain was shown to be normal.  X-ray report of his cervical spine revealed loss of lordosis and C6 and C7 degenerative changes.  Flexion and extension view of his cervical spine was ordered and he was referred to Orthopedics and Traumatology Department for treatment of his neck injury.  He was only given one day's sick leave.

7.The Plaintiff returned to work after the sick leave.  Only on 13^th September 2002, the Plaintiff went to Princess Margaret Hospital for neurological follow-up.  Examination did not show any abnormal sign.  It was recorded by the Hospital that the headache and dizziness has disappeared but neck pain persisted.  X ray cervical spine showed mild foraminal narrowing on C3 and C4 with osteophytes but there were neither mal-alignment nor subluxation on C1 and C2.  Physiotherapy treatment for the neck pain was arranged and the Plaintiff received 10 session of treatment in October and November 2002. During the treatment, the Plaintiff was not given any sick leave and he continued working.  He was also referred to the Orthopedic Department for examination.

8.On 24^th January 2003, the Plaintiff was first examined by the Orthopedic Department of Princess Margaret Hospital.  On assessment, there was only mild tenderness at the neck muscle.  His neck movement was normal and there was no neurological deficit.  X-rays showed no fracture but there were mild degenerative changes. The diagnosis was soft tissue injury during the traffic accident.  He was treated with medication.

9.The Plaintiff stop working for his employer as from 21^st February 2003. The Plaintiff said he was given heavy duty, including lifting of metal pipe, which caused him pain.  He could not handle the work.  He attended the Prince Margaret Hospital for treatment on 21^st February 2003 and was given 14 days sick leave.  He was not given any sick leave after the said 14 days of leave, but he did not return to work. 

10.On 17^th March 2003, the Plaintiff again received treatment at the Princess Margaret Hospital and was granted 3 days' sick leave.  After that, there is no evidence of sick leave and medical treatment until August 2003.  The Plaintiff was given sick leave on 1^st August 2003 for 15 days.  While I do not have the medical certificate, it is not disputed that the Plaintiff had further sick leave from 16^th August 2003 to 11^th September 2003.  Then the Plaintiff has no further sick leave given by any doctor or hospital until trial.

11.It is not disputed that between the date of accident in May 2002 and September 2003, the Plaintiff has a total of 95 days of sick leave.

12.The Plaintiff was last followed up by the Orthopedic Department on 31^st October 2003.  He still had neck pain requiring medications.  The Plaintiff also attended the neurosurgery department of Princess Margaret Hospital on 15^th May 2003 and on 12^th March 2004. 

13.According to the latest report from Princess Margaret Hospital dated 5^th May 2005, it is noted that “on 31^st January 2005, MRI cervical spine was done on 31^st January 2005 and it showed diffused disc degenerative changes involving C2-C7 and a central prolapse at C3C4 and C4C5.”

The Plaintiff's case

14.His counsel has set out in his opening that the Plaintiff is suffering from neck injury and post concussion syndrome.  The Plaintiff cannot find a job and in anyway cannot return to work as a concreter.  The loss and damages claimed are set out in the Revised Schedule of Damages, which is further revised in his opening.  I would come to each item of claim later. 

Defendant's Case

15.It is contended by the Defendant's counsel that the Plaintiff could manage his pre-accident work in early 2003 and indeed, the Plaintiff had returned to work shortly after the accident.  And save for the said sick leave, the Plaintiff was working everyday, including Sunday until February 2003.  The Defendant also relied on their medical experts' opinion and one videotape to argue that the Plaintiff could return to his work, and he is not suffering from the post concussion syndrome as claimed.

16.To determine the loss of the Plaintiff, I have to decide when he could return to work, and for what kind of job.  The key to my assessment of damage is the injuries of the Plaintiff.  It is from 2 areas, firstly, physical injuries and secondly, psychiatric injuries.   

Plaintiff's Evidence

17.The Plaintiff's witness statement was admitted as evidence and has given oral evidence in Court.  He explained that when he returned to work, and besides being assigned light duty, he was assisted by other Nepalese co-workers.  After working for a while, he had to lay down to rest.

18.Some of the work involved cementing gaps around door frames, but he could not cement the tops of the door frames as he had difficulty to raise his head.  But after 21^st February 2003, the employer did not have any light duty work and he was assigned heavy duty, including lifting of pipes.  He felt pain and could not manage the work.  He stopped working for the employer, and wait at home for call.  He had no further work or assignment.  He was formally dismissed by his said employer on 1^st November 2003.

19.The Plaintiff says in evidence that he is still suffering from neck pain.  He cannot return to work because he cannot lift heavy object without feeling pain.  He also felt painful if he has to walk for half to one hour.  If he had to sit for long time, he would feel painful as well.  He has clicking noise when he moves his neck.  He also had numbness with his right arm and leg.  Occasionally, he has stiff neck on waking up.  He had neck pain when he bends down. The Plaintiff has lower back pain for the last 5 to 6 months.  The Plaintiff further complains that he feel dizzy at height and cannot return to work at construction site.  The Plaintiff further said he suffered from decreased memory.  And he is depressed.  And he has less desire for sex, affecting his family life.

Experts Opinion

20.The Defence Counsel relied heavily on a report from Princess Margaret Hospital that on 13^th September 2002, the Plaintiff's headache and dizziness had disappeared. 

21.By a report dated 15^th December 2003, Dr. Tam of Princess Margaret Hospital opines that “on assessment, there was only mild tenderness at the neck muscle.  His neck movement was normal and there was no neurological deficit.  X-rays showed no fracture but there were mild degenerative changes.  The diagnosis was soft tissue injury during the traffic accident.”   And as I mentioned above, the MRI report in 2005 shows that the Plaintiff has diffused disc degenerative changes involving C2-C7 and a central prolapse at C3C4 and C4C5.

22.And on 12^th August 2003, the Plaintiff was assessed by Mr. Andy Lau, an occupational therapist of Princess Margaret Hospital. He found the followings –

a. Cognitively and perceptually intact;

b. Good active control of upper and lower limbs;

c. Good grip power, right/left: 42/40 kgf;

d. Manageable in activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living;

e. Able to perform stairs climbing, squatting as well as lifting for 40 pounds objects for 5 minutes which were up to his job demand.  Mild pain was elicited in neck turning to left side and elevating only.

He opines that the Plaintiff could “manage his job demand at eye level but fair in managing overhead activities”.  In the same report, Mr. Lau recorded that the Plaintiff was a labour.  I assume that he mean the Plaintiff could return to his work as a labour with some limitation of elevation of his head.

23.These reports do suggest the Plaintiff has recovered significantly.  And the Plaintiff has no sick leave and there is no evidence of follow up treatment after September 2003.  These are evidence that he could return to some form of work by then.  But before I come to any conclusion, I have to take into account the other experts' reports.

24.There are 3 experts called for each party:-

On instruction of the Plaintiff –

a. Dr. Richard Poon, orthopaedic

b. Dr. Lo Chun Wai, psychiatry

c. Dr. Brian Choa, neurology

On instruction of the Defendant –

d. Dr. Lau Hoi Kuen, orthopaedic

e. Dr. Peter Ho, psychiatry

f. Dr. Edmund Woo, neurology

25.Dr. Lau had a detailed examination of the Plaintiff.  He is an orthopaedic expert.  The Plaintiff complained to him that he had pain in his low back as well as numbness of his right leg, both began to affect him more than 6 months after the accident.  It is confirmed by X-ray of the Plaintiff's cervical spine, that he suffers the loss of the lordotic curvature as well as degenerative change at the C5-C6 level.  Dr. Lau opined that the Plaintiff does have pain in his neck as evidenced by the loss of lordotic curvature of his cervical spine.  But the absence of muscle spasm in his neck would suggest that the pain should not be such severe as he complained of.  And Dr. Lau opined the Plaintiff could resume his pre-injury work as a general construction worker.  In his supplemental report, Dr. Lau re-confirmed his opinion after viewing the video.

26.The 2^nd Orthopaedic expert, Dr. Poon is of the opinion that the Plaintiff suffered from head injury with concussion, and has accelerated type of soft tissue injury to the cervical spine.  There is little dispute to this finding.  Dr. Lau says that the injuries may also have aggravated the pre-existing and previously asymptomatic mild degenerative changes at C5/C6 level and contributed to the symptoms, i.e. the headache, neck pain and neck problem as set out in his report.  However, there is no reference in his report to how he arrived at this conclusion, or any test carried out.  I assume he is relying on the MRI report from the Princess Margaret Hospital.

27.Dr. Poon recommended a fresh course of intensive physiotherapy treatment for 6 to 8 weeks.  He opined that until the neck extension range improves, the Plaintiff may not be able to return to his pre-accident job as a concreter.   In the meantime, the Plaintiff may work as a security guard or car park attendant, with less physical demands. 

28.While Dr. Lau and Dr. Poon have difference in opinion on the nature of work that the Plaintiff could perform, both orthopaedic experts agree that the Plaintiff could work; the difference is whether as a general construction site worker or a guard.

29.Dr. Woo, a neurologist, opined that the Plaintiff has mild post-concussional syndrome, being the mild residual headache and subjectively impaired memory.  It would account for 1% of the impairment of the whole person but significant improvement in his neurological function is not expected.  He opined that the Plaintiff could return to work as a concreter.  In his supplemental report, Dr. Woo referred to the video and opined that it supports his finding that the Plaintiff has a mild post concussional syndrome.

30.The 2^nd neurologist is Dr. Choa.  He opined that the Plaintiff has a mild but significant head injury.  He attempted to support the conclusion of Dr. Poon and Dr. Lo, which is not his function.  He opined that the Plaintiff is fit to return to some form of work one year after his accident.  The Plaintiff may have to settle for a less strenuous and therefore less well-paid job.  He also said he was surprised that the Plaintiff has stopped working for 2½ years.

31.It appears that both neurologists also agree that the Plaintiff is suffering from post concussion syndrome.  They differ in their view on the impact of the injury on the Plaintiff as to whether the Plaintiff could return to work as a concreter or just some less strenuous job. 

32.Dr. Ho is a psychiatrist.  He has examined the Plaintiff in great details as recorded in his report, and given a very detailed analysis.  He opines that the Plaintiff has suffered from post-concussional syndrome, with some symptoms of headache and dizziness in relation to the head trauma during the accident in question.  He pointed out that the physical disability of the Plaintiff was not that severe according to the overall performance as reported by the occupational therapist (I believe he is referring to the part of the report of Mr. Andy Lau I have quoted above.)  As such it is not sufficient to cause a serious depression.  His unemployment and the worries in relation to his children are likely contributory factors for his mild depression.

33.He also opines that the Plaintiff does not suffer any fear of going to any place including returning to the construction site.  The Plaintiff has only complained to Dr. Ho of his problem to cope with matter like lifting heavy object.  Overall, he cannot see any reason why the Plaintiff could not return to work at the construction site.

34.Dr. Lo, the other psychiatrist, opines that the Plaintiff is suffering from a major depression.  He said the cause of the depression is related to his unremitting physical symptoms of headache, neck pain and dizziness, unemployment, financial problem and problem with the children.  He also suffers from post-concussional syndrome.  He opines that the Plaintiff is fit to return to work but not in a construction site in order not to remind him of the unpleasant experience.  He suggest work as a guard or car park attendant, labourer, messenger would be suitable for the Plaintiff.

35.On treatment, Dr. Lo recommended a psychiatric treatment for 6 months.

Video Tape

36.Further, the Defendant has produced a surveillance videotape to show that the Plaintiff could walk around the city for about 2 hours with no apparent difficulty or pain, on 2 different days.  He could turn and raise his head.  He can walk up staircase to a pedestrian footbridge.

37.There is no challenge to the contents of the video.  Plaintiff's counsel submitted that it is the observation of 2 days only.  And he suggested that the Plaintiff shows his neck tilting more after walking for an hour or more, which is in line with his evidence.  He also pointed out that the Plaintiff has to turn his head to one side before he could raise his head to drink from a bottle of water. 

Finding on Plaintiff's Injuries

38.Having observed the witness in box, I found that the Plaintiff has exaggerated his pain.  He claims to feel painful after walking for half to one hour.  But he was observed on the tape to have been walking around the city on 2 occasions for about 2 hours with no difficulty.

39.The Plaintiff is observed by Mr. Andy Lau to be able to hold 40 pound in his hand for 5 minutes.  When his counsel examined him on the finding by Mr. Lau, he is evasive by saying that he was only asked to carry the weight for a distance of about 3-5 feet. 

40.On physical injuries, I found that the Plaintiff has suffered soft tissue injuries.  As a result, there is loss of lordotic curvature of his cervical spine.  There is also mild foraminal narrowing on C3 and C4 with osteophytes.  There is mild pain in his neck, which is persisting, and there is limit to elevation of his head through neck pain.  In coming to this finding, I rely on the Hospital reports and the expert reports hereinbefore mentioned.

41.On the degenerative change to C5-C6 of the Plaintiff's spine, the Hospital has not given a firm view if the degenerative change at C5-C6 is caused by the accident.  Even Dr. Poon put it no higher that the injury may aggravate the degenerative change.  Though the degenerative change occurs after the accident, I found that the Plaintiff could not prove that it is caused by the injury.

42.On psychiatric injuries, the Plaintiff has a mild post concussional syndrome which includes mild headache and dizziness.  On the claim of depression, the Plaintiff relied on the report of Dr. Lo.

43.There is no record of the Plaintiff attending any treatment for his alleged depression or any psychiatric problem before the hearing.  The Plaintiff claims to have received some treatment from a hospital.  There is no report and not even a medical certificate.  I pay no weight to this assertion.  I have considered the said report of Dr. Lo and Dr. Ho.  I prefer the report of Dr. Ho.  The Plaintiff has a mild depression, caused by his unemployment and the worries in relation to his children.  I conclude that any depression is not caused by the injuries or the accident and, in any way not affecting his daily life. 

44.I do not accept the Plaintiff's assertion that he has fear to work at construction site or at a height.  I do not believe the Plaintiff's evidence on loss of memory and less sex desire.

45.In conclusion, I found that the Plaintiff only has a mild post concussional syndrome, with mild headache and dizziness. 

My Finding on His Working Ability

46.I do not believe the assertion of the Plaintiff that he could not work because of pain.  In fact, as I analysed above, all the doctors agrees that the Plaintiff could at least work as a guard or car park attendant about one year after the accident. 

47.Having considered all the reports, I found that the Plaintiff could return to work about one year after the accident, or in any event, the latest by September 2003, after his last sick leave period.  It could not be shown why the Plaintiff did not worked again after being dismissed in November 2003.   

48.Since the Plaintiff has difficulty in raising his head, I found that he could not return to work as a concreter, which requires more physical activity and to use heavy machine.  I found that he could return to work at the construction site to do other type of work, such as a labour or general worker. 

49.In fact the Plaintiff has returned to work at the construction site after the accident.  As I do not believe his evidence that he has fear to work at high level, I see no reason why he cannot work as a labour.  I do not accept some of the opinion that he should work as a guard or car park attendant.

50.And the report from the Princess Margaret Hospital opines that he has limit on his head elevation and has not suggested further treatment.  I could safely assume that the limit on his neck movement would be persistent, and this defect would affect his working ability in future.

51.With these finding, I now turn to consider his loss.

Pain Suffering and Loss of Amenity

52.The Plaintiff claims $400,000 and relied on 3 cases, Tang Ka Wai Alex v. Chan Wai HCPI 1335/2003, Wong Leung Chi v. Luen Fat Civil Eng. Co. Ltd. & Another HCPI 975/2002, and Cheung Man Fai v. To Yu Bun & Another [2005] 4 HKLRD 16.

53.The Defendant's counsel submitted that a sum of $80,000 is appropriate.

54.Having considered the cases relied on by the Plaintiff, I found that the injuries to the plaintiffs in those cases are more serious.  In particular, I do not rule in favour of the alleged psychiatric injuries. 

55.I have been able to locate a judgment by Mr. Justice Suffiad in HCPI1096 of 2003, Ho Man Fong v. Sime Darby Motor Services Limited.  I found that the injuries are very similar to the Plaintiff.  A sum of $250,000 was awarded there for PSLA.  Taking into account that the Plaintiff has been knocked unconscious for 2 hours, and there is persisting neck pain and limit on elevation, and all his injuries I refer herein, I found that a sum of $250,000 is appropriate.

Loss of Pre Trial Earning

56.It is not disputed that he had been working and could work as a concreter in construction site.  He had managed heavy machine for roadwork.  His last employment was with the said Chun Wo Construction & Engineering Co., Ltd. as “labour”, though his nature of work require him to use heavy machine, earning $350 per day with a fixed allowance of $50 a day.  He had to work 10 hours a day and might be required to work on Sundays and holidays.

57.It is an undisputed fact that the Plaintiff has returned to work after the accident and he had made a total earning of $105,200.  He had only limited days of sick leave.  The Plaintiff is claiming a pre-trial loss of earning of ($10,400 x 45.69)  - $105,200 = $369,976 (as set out in his Counsel's opening) and MPF contribution. 

58.For the period from date of injury until 21 February 2003, the Plaintiff was working and paid.  As such, he suffered no loss except for the days when he went on sick leave.  The Defendant has no objection to paid him on these days of leave and I shall come back to assess his loss on sick leave.

59.Between March and October, the Plaintiff was still employed by the said employer.  It rests on the Plaintiff to prove that he cannot work after February is because of the injuries.  There are 2 possibilities that he did not work – he was not assigned any work in view of his injury or he deliberately refused to work.  On the balance, I accept that he was not assigned any work by the employer because of his injuries.  The Defendant has to pay his loss in earning.

60.Disregarding his sick leave days, for the periods between 7^th March 2003 to 16^th March 2003, and 20^th March 2003 to 31^st July 2003, and 12 September 2003 to 31^st October 2003, a total of 193 calendar days when the Plaintiff had no work or pay, he should be compensated for his loss.  While he used to work every day, in assessing his loss, and to be fair to the Defendant, I would assume he did not work on Sunday.  I would assess the Plaintiff's loss at ($400 x 161) = $64,400.

61.For the period from date of injury to November 2003, the loss of the Plaintiff from taking sick leave at the rate of $400 per day, which is his contractual wages if he is working, is assessed at ($400 x 95 =) $38,000.

62.From November 2003 until trial, the Plaintiff is unemployed. 

63.The Plaintiff said he could not find any job after dismissal.  The Plaintiff said he tried to find work through friends but was unsuccessful.  He had also enrolled with the Labour Department and there is not result.  (The enrolment certificate has been shown to Court on examination.) 

64.Since the Plaintiff has no sick leave, and relying on the medical report I referred to hereinbefore, I found that the Plaintiff could look for a new job as a labour upon dismissal.  It is a change in job nature; I would not be surprised that he cannot find a job quickly.  I am prepared to allow 6 months for the Plaintiff to find the job as a labour.  Hence, for the period between 1^st November 2003 and 30^th April 2004, the Plaintiff suffered a loss of earning.  The Plaintiff's counsel submitted that I should use the average pre-accident wage for calculating the loss.  I am prepared to adopt the submission of Mr. Wright and use the median figure of $12,200 per month.  I would add to the pre-trial loss a sum of $12,200 x 6 = $73,200.

65.The Plaintiff has not explained in Court with details what effort he took to look for employment.  He has been enrolled with the Labour Department in 2005 and he had looked for work through friends.  There is no record or any details of any interview.  I was not told the reason for not being able to get work.  I found on balance that the Plaintiff could not establish that any loss of earning after April 2004 is caused by the accident and/or his injury.  I am not prepared to award any loss for this period except for the loss in earning even if he were employed as a labour.

66.The wage of a labour would be less than that of a concreter.  Hence the Plaintiff would suffer loss being the difference in earning, even if he could find the job of a labour.

67.It is unfortunate that the parties have not provided me with any figure on the wages of a labour.  The best evidence appears to be the wage of the Plaintiff himself before the accident, as he was then employed as a labour.  He has a basic salary of $350 and fixed allowance of $50.  Given he cannot carry out any heavy work, I assess a reasonable remuneration for labour would be $350 per day.

68.On the assumption that he works 26 days a month, the difference would be $3,100.  That runs from 1^st May 2004 until 28^th April 2006, for a period of 24 months.  The loss would be $74,400.

69.In total, his pre-trial loss of earning is ($38,000 +$64,400+ $73,200 + $74,400 =) $250,000.

70.There should be added a MPF loss of $12,500.

Future Loss of Earnings

71.The Plaintiff claims that he cannot return to work as a concreter and could work as a guard only (with lesser pay than a labour).  I found that he could return to work at the construction site as a labour and not a concreter.  There is loss of future earning being the difference in wage of a concreter and a labour.

72.I again use his average earning before the accident of $12,200 as his expected monthly income as a concreter.  As a labour, I would use his daily wages of $350.  Assuming that the Plaintiff work 26 days a month, the difference in earning is $12,200 – ($350 x 26) = $3,100 per month. 

73.Mr. Wright submitted that a multiplier of 13 should be adopted.  The Defence counsel submitted that there is no loss.  Having considered all the matter, I consider a multiplier of 10 is appropriate.  The loss to the Plaintiff would be $3,100 x 12 x 10 = $372,000.

74.And the loss of MPF would be $18,600.

Loss of Earning Capacity

75.The Defendant concedes that there should be a loss of earning capacity of $30,000.  The Plaintiff claims 150,000.

76.The Plaintiff's loss of future earning has been dealt with.  Under this head, I am only to award damages for the disadvantage of the Plaintiff in the labour market.  Taking his injuries into account, I would award a sum of $50,000.

Special Damages

77.The pre-trial medical and travel expenses have been agreed and I award the agreed sum of $1,796 to the Plaintiff.

Future Medical Expenses

78.The Plaintiff claims intensive physiotherapy for 6 to 8 weeks as recommended by Dr. Poon.  I see no reason why the Plaintiff cannot engage the service from the Hospital Authority.  It would costs about $100 per visit for treatment by Hospital Authority.  And as claimed by the Plaintiff, 3 sessions a week, I would award a sum round up to $3,000.

79.From the medical record, the Plaintiff does not have to take leave for the treatment.  No damage for sick leave would be awarded.

80.The Plaintiff also claims future psychiatric treatment as suggested by Dr. Lo.  There is no history of treatment.  Since I only find a mild depression as opined by Dr. Ho, who do not suggest any treatment, I do not accept the recommendation of Dr. Lo.  This head of claim is refused.

Summary

Interest

82.Interests will be awarded for general damages for pain suffering and loss of amenities at 2% p.a. from the date of the Writ to judgment.

83.Interests on all special damages and pre-trial loss of earnings will be awarded at 5.3555% (being half judgment rate) from the date of the accident until judgment.

Cost

84.Cost should follow the event and there be an order nisi that the Plaintiff to have the costs of the assessment to be taxed if not agreed.  Since the amount award is less than $1 million, the costs should be award at District Court Scale, with certificate for counsel.  The Plaintiff is legal aided and his own costs be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.  The order shall become absolute within 14 days.

Dated the 28^th day of April 2006.