Chiang Lai Ling v. Cheung Siu Ming
|
DCCJ 4569/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO.4569 OF 2010 ______
Coram: Master B. Mak in Court Date of Hearing: 27th May 2011 and 14th July 2011 Date of Handing down of Judgment: 22nd July 2011 _______________________________ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES _______________________________ Background 1.This is an assessment of damages of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant. 2.Interlocutory Judgment was entered on 10thFebruary, 2011 with damages to be assessed due to the Defendant’s failure to give notice of intention to defend. 3.At the hearing on 27th May 2011 and 14th July 2011, the Defendant was absent. I have read the Affirmation of Service of Kwan Man Chun filed on 17th May, 2011, 20th June, 2011 and 12th July, 2011, I am satisfied that due notices of hearing have been given to the Defendant. Therefore, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s case 4.The Plaintiff was the owner of a vehicle bearing registration number MA4385 (“the Plaintiff’s car”). 5.On 21st November, 2008 at about 1820 hours, the Defendant while driving his vehicle bearing registration number NH5624 along Tolo Highway failed to stop in time and rammed into the rear of a motorcycle bearing registration number MA2548 (“the motorcycle”). The motorcycle was pushed forward and hit the rear of the Plaintiff’s car. As a result, the Plaintiff’s car was damaged. 6.The Plaintiff’s car was inspected by Mr. Lau Che Ming, a Motor Surveyor, together with a Mr. Leung of Crown Motors on 10th December, 2008. Mr. Lau had adjusted the repair costs from the price quoted by Crown Motors of $137,365.00 (labour $63,135 and parts $74,230) to $89,925.70 (labour $42,538.50 and parts $47,387.20). 7.Mr. Lau said that in view of the condition of the Plaintiff’s car was quite good, he attributed 25% of the costs for the parts towards betterment, ie. $11,846.80 ($47,387.20 x 25%). 8.The Plaintiff’s car was insured by China Ping An Insurance (HK) Ltd (“Ping An”). Under the insurance policy, the Plaintiff was required to pay an excess of $5,000 and depreciation of parts in the sum of $11,846.80. The balance of the repair costs in the sum of $73,078.90 ($89,925.70 - $5,000 - $11,846.80) was paid by Ping An. 9.Under the insurance policy, the Plaintiff was obliged to sue the person responsible for the damage and to reimburse Ping An of the compensation paid. 10.In giving her evidence in Court, the Plaintiff said that she would reimburse Ping An from the damages she is able to recover from the Defendant in this action. 11.The Plaintiff has also paid for the Motor Vehicle Survey Report fee of Lau Ming Motor Survey Co. in the sum of $750. Betterment 12.In Wong Ping Mui v Mak Hung On, DCCJ 2874/2001, His Honour Judge A. Cheung (as he then was) held that the Court would not deduct from the damages the betterment brought about by the repair. Findings 13.I am satisfied that the repair costs of $89,925.70 is a fair and reasonable amount incurred. The Plaintiff is entitled to recover the said costs from the Defendant. 14.In assessing the proper repair costs, I do not take into account the betterment or improvement of the condition of the Plaintiff’s car as a result of the repair. 15.I also accept that the Plaintiff had paid for the Motor Vehicle Survey Report fee of Lau Ming Motor Survey Co. in the sum of $750. Conclusion 16.To sum up, I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant the following sums :-
Interest 17.The Plaintiff is entitled to interest on the said sum of $90,675.70 at judgment rate from the date of Writ to the date of Interlocutory Judgment and thereafter at Judgment rate until payment. Costs 18.I have considered the Plaintiff’s Statement of Costs. By summary assessment, I make an Order nisi that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff costs of this action including the costs of the Assessment of Damages in the sum of $34,000. The Order nisi shall become absolute after the expiration of 14 days.
Mr. Lau Chun Ming of Messrs. Li, Kwok & Law for the Plaintiff Defendant: absent | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||