Secretary for Justice v. Chau Man Shan and Another

Case No.DCCJ 4403/2008
Court
District Court
Date02 Dec 2009
Judge
Case Document
100%

DCCJ4403/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO.4403 OF 2008

________

BETWEEN

  SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE Plaintiff
  And  
  CHAU MAN SHAN 1st Defendant
  THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF HO TSZ HIM, DECEASED 2nd Defendant

________

Coram: Master B. Mak in Court

Date of Hearing: 25th November 2009

Date of Handing Down Judgment: 2nd December 2009

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

1.In this action, the Plaintiff claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants for the damage of Public Light Pole No.AA2045 (“the said Light Pole”) which was situated outside Rhythm Garden, Prince Edward Road East, Wong Tai Sin, Kowloon as a result of an accident happened on 17th December 2003 involving vehicle bearing registration number KA3439 (“the said vehicle”).

2.At the time of the accident, the said vehicle was owned by the 1st Defendant and driven by Mr. Ho Tsz Him. Mr. Ho died after the accident.

3.An Interlocutory Judgment was entered against both Defendants on 30th January 2009 in default of Notice of Intention to Defend.

4.At the hearing before me, Miss Parwani for the Plaintiff informed this Court that the Plaintiff would only pursue its claim against the 1st Defendant.

5.The 1st Defendant was absent at the hearing.

The Plaintiff’s evidence

6.The Plaintiff called Mr. Hui Ka Chun to give evidence. He is an Engineer of the Lighting Division of the Highways Department.

7.Mr. Hui testified that the Highways Department engaged its term Contractor, CLP Engineering Limited, to replace the said Light Pole, which included the replacement of one set of 400W Son-T LTI Bowl Lantern and one 12-metre single arm column and the removal of the damaged column lights. The costs of the replacement work is $3,704.80 as evidenced by an Invoice issued by CLP Engineering Ltd. (Page 41 of the Bundle).

8.Further, the Highways Department incurred administration costs in the sum of $1,142.50. The details of the said administration costs are shown in a schedule showing costs of supervision and administration dated 15th July 2005 prepared by the Highways Department (Page 42 of the Bundle).

Findings

9.I accept Mr. Hui’s evidence on the costs the Plaintiff had incurred as a result of the accident happened on 17th December 2003. I find that the Plaintiff has proved to my satisfaction that it has suffered loss and damage in the sum of $4,847.30, being the cost incurred to replace the said Light Pole.

10.Accordingly, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover damage from the 1st Defendant in the sum of $4,847.30 with interest thereon at Judgment rate from the date of Writ until full payment.

11.I make an Order Nisi that the costs of this action be to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.

  (signed)
(B. Mak)
Master, District Court

Representation:

Miss Audrey Parwani, Government Counsel for the Plaintiff

The 1st and 2nd Defendants: absent