Ken Simon and Others v. Carter Agency International Ltd

Case No.DCCJ 5005/2005

Court

District Court

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCCJ 5005/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5005 OF 2005

BETWEEN

	KEN SIMON	1^st Plaintiff
	ALAN JONES	2^nd Plaintiff
	FATIMA EL SHIBOLI	3^rd Plaintiff
	and
	CARTER AGENCY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	Defendant

Coram: Deputy District Judge Anthony Chow in Court

Date of Hearing: 11^th August 2006

Date of Handing Down Reasons for Assessment of Damages: 14^th August 2006

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

1.This is a claim for damages for breach of contract.

2.On 20/6/2005, the parties entered into a contract where the plaintiffs were to provide services as the musical group ‘Inspiration Trio’ to a hotel in Busan, Korea (the “Contract”).

3.The Contract was for a fixed term commencing from 28/6/2005 to 2/10/1005. The plaintiffs were to be paid the sum of US$4,200.00 for the period ending 15/7/2005; US$7,000.00 for the period ending 15/8/2005; US$7,000.00 for the period ending 15/9/2005 and US$4,200.00 for the period ending 2/10/2005.

4.The defendant was also responsible to provide 3 economy class air-ticket for the plaintiffs to travel from New York, U.S.A. to Busan, Korea and from Busan, Korea to New York, U.S.A..

5.The defendant could terminate the Contract by giving a one-month prior written notice.

6.The plaintiffs arrived at Busan, Korea pursuant to the terms of the Contract, but on or about 4/8/2005, by telephone notice, the Contract was terminated. A total sum of US$5,845.00 was paid to the plaintiffs.

7.On or about 10/10/2005, the plaintiffs filed claim against the defendant.

8.On 21/11/2005, Interlocutory Judgment was entered against the defendant, with damages to be assessed. This hearing is for the assessment of damages.

9.It is trite that in breach of contract claims, the principle in damage assessment is to put the non-breaching party back to the same position as if the contract was fulfilled.

10.Here, the Contract was a fixed term contract and the total remuneration was US$22,400.00. After deducting the sum already received, the plaintiffs should be compensated for the sum of US$16,555.00.

11.The plaintiffs also asked for loss of earnings for the period between August 2005 and October 2005; however, any loss of earnings the plaintiffs may suffer during this period is already covered by the loss of remuneration assessed above. Any additional compensation would amount to double recovery for the plaintiffs.

12.As the contract clearly provided for return air-tickets for the plaintiffs, this part of the claim is therefore proper compensation due to the defendant’s breach.

Order:

13.	(i)	The defendant shall pay the plaintiffs the sum of US$ 17,311.00 or its Hong Kong dollar equivalent, as damages, together with interest, at the judgment rate from 1/11/2005 until full payment is received.
	(ii)	The defendant shall pay the plaintiffs costs of this assessment, to be taxed if not agreed.

(Anthony Chow)
Deputy District Judge

Miss Samtani, of M/S Stephenson Harwood & Lo, for the Plaintiffs.

Defendant, unrepresented, absent.