East Best Industrial (HK) Ltd v. Tan Wee Siang
|
DCCJ 4580/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CIVIL ACTION NO. 4580 OF 2011 _______________ BETWEEN
_______________ Coram: Before Master D. HO in Court Date of Hearing: 22nd November 2012 Date of Handing Down Judgment: 26th November 2012 __________________ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES __________________ 1.This is an assessment of damages arising out of a traffic accident on 25 November 2010 in which a motor vehicle bearing registration number NT7750 and owed by the Plaintiff (“NT7750”) was damaged by the Defendant who was the owner and driver of a motor vehicle bearing the registration “SUPERTT”. 2.The Defendant gave no notice of intention to defend and interlocutory judgment on liability was entered on 27th February 2012 with damages to be assessed. 3.The Defendant was absent at the assessment hearing. Being satisfied that due notice of the hearing had been given by the Plaintiff’s Solicitors to the Defendant, I proceeded with assessment of damages in the Defendant’s absence. 4.The Plaintiff’s claim for damages comprises 3 items, namely, (i) repair costs at HK$109,497.90; (ii) rental for substitute car at HK$16,000; and (iii) motor survey fee at HK$800. 5.In his testimony in court, Mr. Li Ming Hoi of the Plaintiff (“Mr. Li”) confirmed the contents of his witness statement filed herein and further explained that the repair of NT7750 which was carried out between 25 November 2010 and 11 January 2011 took time because of the need to await delivery of replacement parts. He also confirmed that the Plaintiff had duly settled the repair cost of $109,497.90. Such repair and payment are duly supported by a receipt and a letter from the repairer certifying the repair period. 6.The Plaintiff adduced in evidence a motor survey report from Toplis & Harding (Hong Kong) Limited (“Toplis & Harding”) dated 7 December 2010 (“Motor Survey Report”). 7.The Motor Survey Report adjusts the repairer’s estimate as to labour cost and value of parts to HK$23,000 and HK$86,497.90 respectively, giving a total of HK$109,497.90. Based on the age (around 20 months old) and condition of the vehicle, the Motor Survey Report goes on to apply a depreciation rate of 10% towards the value of all parts and deducts HK$8,649.80 from the said sum of HK$109,497.90 (“Deduction”), giving a net assessment at HK$100,848.10. 8.While the Deduction is made without any reference to betterment, Mr. Ho for the Plaintiff submits that I should treat the same as deduction on account of betterment. 9.I agree. The Deduction is obviously made to account for betterment. It is trite law that for the purpose of assessment of damages, no deduction should be made on account of betterment. See Wong Ping Mui v. Mak Hung On (DCCJ 2874/2001), unrep., A. Cheung, J., 12 October 2001 and McGregor on Damages(18th ed.) para.32-006. 10.In the light of the above, I assess the reasonable repair cost at HK$109,497.90. 11.Mr. Li further testified that he was employed by the Plaintiff as driver of NT7750 which was used by the Plaintiff for travelling between Hong Kong and the Mainland for business purpose. As a result of the traffic accident and during repair of NT7750, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with a business acquaintance (惠州市東日電子有限公司) for hiring a substitute vehicle from the latter from 26 November 2010 to 25 January 2011 at the cost of HK$16,000. This is evidenced by a car hiring agreement and a receipt both dated 16 November 2011. I find the hire charge for the substitute vehicle, which appears to be modest when compared to NT7750, to be reasonable. 12.Mr. Li also confirmed the Plaintiff’s payment of motor survey fee at HK$800 as evidenced by a receipt of Toplis & Harding. 13.I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has incurred HK$16,000 for the substitute vehicle and HK$800 by way of motor survey fee and award the same to the Plaintiff accordingly. 14.The Plaintiff’s damages are therefore assessed at $126,297.90 and I adjudge that to be payable by the Defendant. There shall be interest on that sum at judgment rate from the date of writ until today and thereafter at judgment rate until payment. 15.As to costs, Mr. Ho submitted in court a statement of costs and requested summary assessment of the Plaintiff’s costs in these proceedings including those for assessment of damages. I accede to the request and order that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff its costs of these proceedings including costs for assessment of damages, summarily assessed at HK$28,000.
Representation Mr. Ho Wing Kwong, Sam of Messrs. T. C. Foo & Co., Solicitors for the Plaintiff The Defendant in person, absent |
Cases cited in this judgment