Secretary for Justice v. Chong Kui (Group) Co Ltd
|
HCA 928/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 928 OF 2007 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan in Court Date of Hearing: 17 June 2010 Date of Judgment: 17 June 2010 ______________ J U D G M E N T ______________ 1.The defendant installed a barrier for the plaintiff at the entrance of the Tolo Harbour. The barrier turned out to be defective. The plaintiff rejected the barrier and also sued the defendant for damages which included the costs for disposal of the barrier. 2.I gave judgment in favour of the defendant on 9 February 2009. I further ordered the defendant to remove and dispose of the barrier within 2 months thereafter, failing which damages would be assessed for the disposal. 3.The defendant did not remove the barrier within the two months. On 15 January 2010, I allowed an application by the plaintiff to appoint Tai Kau Lo Transportation Company Limited (“Tai Kau Lo”) as its contractor to remove and dispose of the barrier. The quotation for the works submitted by Tai Kau Lo was $190,000 and that was the lowest of the three quotations obtained by the plaintiff. The other two quotations from other transportation companies were at $280,000 and $350,000. 4.The plaintiff then instructed Tai Kau Lo to, and Tai Kau Lo did remove and dispose of the barrier in January 2010. The plaintiff also paid Tai Kau Lo $190,000 for the works and the payment is evidenced by a receipt of Tai Kau Lo dated 3 February 2010. 5.In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the defendant should reimburse the plaintiff for this sum. I therefore assess the damages that the defendant has to pay the plaintiff for the removal and disposal of the barrier at $190,000. I further order the defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of this assessment with certificate for counsel.
Ms Jennifer Tsui, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Plaintiff The Defendant, in person, absent | |||||||||||||||||||
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 928/2007