Liu Chun Kow Joe v. Lee Sau Wing

HCPI 399/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 399 OF 2001

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Waung J in Chambers

Dates of Hearing : 26 July 2007

Date of Judgment : 26 July 2007

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.I have two applications before me arising out of my judgment dated 15 February 2007.  There are two topics forming the subject of the discussion today : one is in relation to corrections of certain items in my judgment, and the other is on the matter of interest.  

2.I would first deal with the matter of corrections.

3.I accept that it is only in exceptional cases, with special circumstances, that the court should indulge in correcting a judgment given, or any particular aspect of a judgment.  There are now a number of items that the parties suggest that should be corrected. 

4.As to Item 2, there is no dispute that a mathematical mistake had occurred and that therefore the proper figure for Item 2 should be $135,711.

5.As to Item 5, it is common ground that I made a mistake in not appreciating that the letter I had relied on at paragraph 71 of my judgment (in dismissing Item 5 Claim) was overtaken by another letter which totally changed the picture.  Having looked at the matter again and in the light of my holding in favour of the plaintiff on Items 3 and 4, I am of the view that the plaintiff should be allowed in full the amount claimed of $53,392.  So there is a correction under Item 5, in that, instead of zero there should be allowed a sum of $53,392.

6.In relation to Item 3, I do not take the view that this is a matter that should be the subject of any correction or a revisiting of what I had decided.  If there is any unhappiness with that, that should be the subject of an appeal.

7.I now turn to interest.

8.I heard arguments by both counsel.  I read their skeletons.  I think there may be scope in suggesting that the plaintiff be deprived of interest for a period of some 22 months where, it is said, that he did not pursue his proceedings vigorously and properly as he should, because a lot of time was wasted by the engagement, both in terms of discovery as well as correspondence with the hospital over the accuracy of the hospital records.  I am taking a broad and liberal view of the matter.  In my opinion, justice would be served by an interest award of, instead of paragraph 8 of the skeleton of Mr Sakhrani of $468,444.93 x 5.467% x 3,154/365 days, I would substitute not the number of days but the interest rate to 5.375%.  So there is no reduction of period but there is a difference of interest percentage calculation.  That is my decision on the interest that should be awarded.

Mr Ashok K. Sakrani, instructed by Messrs Munros, for the Plaintiff

Mr John Wright and Mr Tony Ko, instructed by Messrs Ip Kwan & Co., for the Defendant