Yip Hoi Kit v. Wan Siu Lun and Another

DCCJ 1794/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1794 OF 2013

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Background

1.This is the plaintiff’s assessment of damages of his claim against the 1st and 2nd defendants.  Interlocutory judgment has been entered against both defendants on 16 July 2013, with damages to be assessed.

2.This case involves a traffic accident, in which the plaintiff was the registered owner of a private car (FF 1480) and the 1st and 2nd defendants were the driver and owner of a light goods vehicle (RE 6799) respectively.

3.The accident happened on 4 February 2012, when the plaintiff was driving his private car along the first left lane of Castle Peak Road towards Tuen Mun direction and the 1st defendant was driving his LGV along the second lane of Tai Hoi Road towards Tsim Sha Tsui direction.  When these two vehicles reached the junction of Castle Peak Road with Tai Hoi Road, the 1st defendant failed to obey the traffic light signal and drove his vehicle to Castle Peak Road, rammed into the rear right part of the plaintiff’s private car.

4.After the plaintiff obtained the interlocutory judgment, the defendants failed to attend all hearings or take part in the defence of the case.

5.In this assessment of damages, the plaintiff gave evidence of his loss and also produced a motor surveyor report dated 18 February 2012 without calling the maker.

6.In the said motor surveyor report, it is estimated that the market value of the private car was $95,000 and is of the opinion that the plaintiff has suffered total loss of the private car.

7.As the repair cost and labour cost would exceed the market value of the vehicle, the plaintiff sold his private car at the scrap value of $5,000.  

8.Therefore, the plaintiff suffered $90,000 after deduction of the $5,000, which he received from the sale of the car to Say Luen Auto Parts Limited.

9.Besides, the plaintiff also claimed motor survey fee of $650, ie the total amount of claim by the plaintiff is $90,650.

Discussion

10.Since the 1st and 2nd defendants are absent at the assessment of damages, the plaintiff’s evidence is not challenged at all.

11.I have no reasons to doubt the motor surveyor’s report or the evidence of the plaintiff.

12.In such circumstances, I attach full weight in both the motor surveyor’s report and the plaintiff’s evidence.

13.On balance of probabilities, I accept that the plaintiff suffered total loss of his car.  The market value of his vehicle is $95,000.  After deducting the selling price of $5,000 to Say Luen, the loss of his vehicle is $90,000 and I also award $650 for the motor survey fee to the plaintiff.

Conclusion

14.In view of the above reasons, I make the following order:

(1) the 1st and 2nd defendants do pay the plaintiff damages assessed at HK$90,650, with interest at judgment rate from the date of writ up to the date of payment; and

(2) costs of this action be to the plaintiff, payable by both defendants.

(Discussion re costs)

15.Upon hearing plaintiff’s submission on costs and reading the statement of costs of the plaintiff, I summarily assess the plaintiff’s costs at HK$50,000.

Mr B Lee, of Au & Associates, for the plaintiff

The defendants were not represented and did not appear