Wing Lung Insurance Co Ltd v. Ng Bo Yu and Another

Case No.DCCJ 1320/2009

Court

District Court

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

DCCJ 1320/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO.1320 OF 2009

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

BETWEEN
	WING LUNG INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED	Plaintiff
	and
	NG BO YU	1^st Defendant
	LEUNG KING SHING	2^nd Defendant

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

Coram: Master B. Mak in Court

Date of Hearing: 29^th July 2010

Date of Handing down of Judgment: 13^th August 2010

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Background

1.This is an assessment of damages of the Plaintiff’s claim against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants.

2.Interlocutory Judgment was entered against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants on 24^th April 2009.

3.A substituted service Order was granted by me on 11^th June 2010 for the service of all relevant documents on the 1^st Defendant. The said Order was complied with on 25^th June 2010.

4.All documents were served on the 2^nd Defendant on 18^th May 2010, 14^th July 2010 and the 23^rd July 2010 respectively.

5.I am satisfied that due notice of today’s hearing has been given to each of the Defendants. Therefore, the hearing continued in the absence of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff’s case

6.The Plaintiff is an insurance company and the insurer of a private car registration number LN2951 (hereinafter called “the vehicle”).

7.A traffic accident involving the vehicle happened on the 25^th November 2004 at Tai Tong Shan Road near Tai Lam Country Park and lamp post AD5386, Yuen Long, New Territories, Hong Kong.

8.As a result, one Mr. Yeung Chui, who was a passenger in the vehicle at the time, was injured.

9.At the time of the accident, the 1^st Defendant was the owner of the vehicle whereas the 2^nd Defendant was the driver.

10.Mr. Yeung commenced in legal proceedings against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants under DCPI No.2346 of 2007 (“the PI action”).

11.The 2^nd Defendant was prosecuted for the offence of careless driving and was subsequently convicted.

12.Both Defendants had failed to give any notice of the said prosecution or conviction or copies of the relevant summons and other documents to the Plaintiff immediately. By reason thereof, they have committed a breach of the General Conditions (18) (b) of the insurance policy. The Plaintiff was therefore entitled to disclaim and did disclaim liability to indemnify the two Defendants.

13.Due to the Plaintiff's statutory liability to the injured person under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance, the Plaintiff took charge of the said personal injuries claim.

14.Eventually, the Plaintiff settled Mr. Yeung's claim for the sum of $330,000 plus costs which were agreed at $40,000.

15.The Plaintiff also paid $32,500 on its own legal costs in the said action.

Findings

16.In the PI action, Mr. Yeung claimed for damages under the following heads :-

(1) PSLA $400,000

(2) Pre-trial loss of earnings $ 55,125

(3) Loss of earning capacity $ 50,000

(4) Future Medical Treatment $ 40,000

(5) Special damages $ 8,233

Total: $553,358

17.Having regard to the extent of Mr. Yeung’s injury and having regard to the following authorities, namely,

(1) Chung Chan Man v Chow Wai Kin, HCPI 713/2004;

(2) Teng Wei Yan v Kwok Kai Wai & Others, DCPI 54/2005;

(3) Chan Kam Man v Yiu Kam Shui, DCPI 355/2003; and

(4) Chan Tsz Sing v Lo Ching Pong & others, CACV 176/2004,

I am satisfied that sum of $350,000 under PSLA is reasonable.

18.During the negotiation in the PI action, the Plaintiff had rightly raised doubt as to the authenticity of Mr. Yeung's occupation at the time of the accident. Hence, in their assessment, no offer should be made under Pre-trial Loss of Earnings. The offers under Loss of Earning Capacity and Future Medical Treatment should be reduced to $20,000 respectively. Special damages should be lowered to $6,000.

19.I am satisfied that the finally agreed sum of $330,000 is reasonable.

20.I am also satisfied that the agreed costs in the sum of $40,000 is reasonable and so is the Plaintiff's own legal costs in the sum of $32,500.

Summary

21.Accordingly, the amount of damages I award to the Plaintiff are as follows:-

(1) Settlement sum $330,000

(2) Agreed costs $ 40,000

(3) Own costs $ 32,500

Total: $402,500

Interest

22.The Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said sum of $402,500 at judgment rate from the date of Writ to the date of Interlocutory Judgment and thereafter at Judgment rate until payment.

Costs

21. I order that the Defendants shall pay costs of this action including costs of this Assessment of Damages to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.