SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHONG HUNG LEUNG

DCCJ 5163/2020

[2025] HKDC 1046

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 5163 OF 2020

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

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Introduction

1.  The Plaintiff instituted this action for and on behalf of the Commissioner of Police (“the Commissioner”) pursuant to section 13 of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance (Cap. 300) for the recovery of the outstanding rent, mesne profits and cleansing fees arising out of the Defendant’s occupation of a departmental quarter.

2.  The Defendant was a former police officer employed by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Hong Kong Police Force (“the HKPF”).

3.  On 29 December 2020, interlocutory judgment was entered against the Defendant with mesne profits and/or damages to be assessed and costs upon his failure to give any notice of intention to defend. By the Notice of Assessment of Damages filed on 24 June 2024, the Plaintiff proceeded with the assessment of damages.

4.  The Defendant had been absent throughout the proceedings. He did not attend the assessment hearing. The Plaintiff confirmed that all relevant documents, including the Notice of Assessment of Damages and the Order dated 17 February 2025 for setting down, had been duly served on the Defendant’s last known address with no return mail. A Notice of Trial dated 5 March 2025 was also issued by the Court to inform the parties of the details of the assessment hearing.

5.  Having considered the relevant affirmations of service, I was satisfied that the Defendant had been given due notice of the assessment hearing and proceeded with the hearing as scheduled in the absence of the Defendant.

Analysis of Evidence

6.  The Plaintiff called 1 factual witness, namely Ms. Chen Yen-ling, Executive Officer of the Quartering Division of the Conditions of Service and Discipline Branch, to testify at the assessment hearing. Ms. Chen adopted the contents of her witness statement dated 6 December 2024[1] as her evidence-in-chief. She supplemented information on the calculation of outstanding rent and the condition of the departmental quarter after repossession at the assessment hearing.

7.  The Plaintiff also adduced a valuation report dated 13 September 2024 (“the Valuation Report”)[2] prepared by Leung Ka-ki, Valuation Surveyor in the Acquisition, Allocation & Disposal Division of the Government Property Agency (“the GPA”) as documentary evidence pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Order dated 17 September 2024.

8.  The Defendant did not adduce any evidence to contradict the Plaintiff’s case. Ms. Chen’s evidence is consistent and supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence. I find Ms. Chen to be a credible witness and accept her evidence as set out in the Plaintiff’s Case below. I also accept the findings in the Valuation Report.

The Plaintiff’s Case

9.  The Defendant was formerly employed as a police officer and was subject to the terms of, inter alia, the Civil Service Regulations (“CSR”) and the Force Procedures Manual (“FPM”).

10.  In consequence of the said employment and upon the Defendant’s signing of the Undertaking for Allocation of Departmental Quarters dated 13 January 2009 (“the Undertaking”)[3], he and his family were given permission to use and occupy the premises known as Flat G, 6/F, Block 21, Riviera Garden, Tsuen Wan, New Territories (“the Premises”) subject to payment of monthly rent in accordance with the relevant CSR provisions.

11.  It is expressly stipulated under the Undertaking that the Defendant’s occupation of the Premises is conditional upon his compliance with the terms of the Undertaking and other relevant regulations. The Defendant is required to vacate the Premises upon the Commissioner’s demand in the event of the termination of his service. Upon the Defendant’s vacation of the Premises, the Commissioner is entitled to recover from the Defendant outstanding rent, mesne profits as determined by the GPA for any period of unauthorised occupation, cleansing fees and the fees for reinstating the Premises[4].

12.  The Defendant’s salary was at point 16 of the Police Pay Scale at the material time, which was largely equivalent to point 19 of the Master Pay Scale. The Defendant was required to pay rent at the prescribed percentage of 7.5% of his monthly salary pursuant to CSR 872[5], namely HK$2,256.00 per month from 1 April 2014 and HK$2,360.25 per month from 1 April 2015 in accordance with the respective Police Pay Scales produced at the assessment hearing.

13.  On 10 November 2014, the Defendant was convicted of 13 counts of “Fraud” on his own guilty plea whereupon his salary/allowance was stopped since then pursuant to section 37(4) of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232). The Defendant was subsequently sentenced to 120 hours of Community Service Order for each count of the charges to be run concurrently.

14.  The Defendant was dismissed without retirement benefits from the HKPF with effect from 24 July 2015 and since then lost his eligibility to occupy the Premises as stipulated under FPM 62-24(b)(i)[6]. He was required under FPM 62-24(2)(j)[7] and paragraphs 8(c)-(d) of the Undertaking[8] to vacate the Premises within 1 month upon the termination of his active service. By the respective letters dated 27 July 2015 and 14 August 2015[9] from the Police Quartering Division of the HKPF, the Defendant was requested to vacate the Premises on or before 23 August 2015.

15.  After repeated requests and demands made by the Commissioner[10], the Defendant delivered possession of the Premises on 3 April 2017. However, contrary to FPM 62-14 and CSR 893[11], he did not remove his personal effects and failed to reinstate the Premises.

16.  According to Ms. Chen, a notice was posted up at the Premises notifying the Defendant to remove his personal effects by 8 May 2017, failing which the Commissioner would remove all the items left behind and claim against the Defendant for all removal and reinstatement costs thereby incurred.

17.  Despite the said notice, the Defendant still failed to reinstate the Premises as required. The Commissioner then engaged Yan Yan Transportation Co., Ltd. (“Yan Yan”) to carry out clearance work at the costs of HK$9,800.00 on 26 May 2017. The Defendant also failed to pay outstanding rent since the stoppage of his salary in mid-November 2014 from 1 December 2014 to 23 August 2015 and mesne profits from 24 August 2015 to 2 April 2017.

18.  The Plaintiff adduced the relevant tender record, the fee quotation (with details of the items left behind at the Premises) and the invoice issued by Yan Yan in support[12]. Yan Yan was the only service supplier who responded to the invitation for tenders. The Plaintiff also produced coloured photos taken at the Premises showing the furniture and personal belongings left behind by the Defendant after returning the possession of the Premises to the Commissioner.

19.  Based on the above factual findings, I now turn to determine each head of claim.

Discussion

(1)  Outstanding Rent

20.  I accept the Plaintiff’s case that the Defendant failed to pay any rent from 1 December 2014 to 23 August 2015, i.e. the date when he was required to vacate the Premises after losing his eligibility to occupy the same.

21.  I therefore assess the outstanding rent[13] as follows:

HK$2,256.00 x 4[14] + HK$2,360.25 x 4[15] + HK$2,360.25 x 23/31[16] = HK$20,216.15

(2)  Mesne Profits

22.  The Defendant was required to pay mesne profits under paragraphs 8(d) and 21 of the Undertaking, FPM 62-24(3) and CSR 808[17] for any period of unauthorised occupation of the Premises as determined by the GPA.

23.  According to the Valuation Report, the GPA assessed the monthly market rent of the Premises at HK$13,600.00 as at 24 August 2015 on the assumption of a lease term of 2 years, inclusive of notional rates and management charge[18]. As such, I allow the Plaintiff’s claim for mesne profits in full from the date of unauthorised occupation on 24 August 2015 to the date when possession of the Premises was delivered on 2 April 2017 as follows:

HK$13,600.00 x 8/31[19] + HK$13,600.00 x 19[20] + HK$13,600.00 x 2/30[21] = HK$262,816.34[22]

(3)  Cleansing Fees

24.  As supported by the fee quotation and coloured photos taken at the Premises at the material time, the Defendant had left behind a lot of personal effects and furniture, including but not limited to 1 set of bunk beds with mattresses, 1 double bed with mattress, 1 drying machine and 1 refrigerator. The total costs of HK$9,800.00 included the costs of discarding the Defendant’s furniture, removing the air conditioner rack and removing the washing machine.

25.  In light of the number of items required to be discarded, I am of the view that the costs of HK$9,800.00 are reasonable and allow the Plaintiff’s claim for cleansing fees in full at HK$9,800.00.

Summary

26.  The Plaintiff’s damages are assessed as follows:

	HK$
(1) Outstanding Rent	20,216.15
(2) Mesne Profits	262,816.34
(3) Cleansing Fees	9,800.00
Total:	292,832.49   ========

Interest and Costs

27.  The Plaintiff confirmed at the assessment hearing that he would not claim any pre-judgment interest.

28.  Costs should follow the event. As the Plaintiff has been awarded the full amount of damages as claimed, he should be entitled to costs. According to the Statement of Costs dated 2 June 2025, the Plaintiff is claiming costs of HK$64,065.00 in total.

29.  Having considered the nature and complexity of this action, I am of the view that the costs of professional work (Item D) are slightly on the high side and would therefore make a deduction of HK$9,000.00, being 3 hours at the hourly rate of HK$3,000.00. I would allow the costs of manual work (Item B), communications (Item C) and other disbursements (Item E) in full.

30.  Adopting a broad-brush approach, I make a costs order nisi that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff’s costs of this action (including this assessment of damages) summarily assessed at HK$55,065.00.

Disposition

31.  In the circumstances, final judgment is entered in the Plaintiff’s favour against the Defendant in the sum of HK$292,832.49 together with interest accrued thereon at judgment rate from the date of this assessment of damages until full payment.

32.  There be a costs order nisi that the Defendant do pay the Plaintiff’s costs of this action summarily assessed at HK$55,065.00. Unless any party applies to vary the same by summons, the costs order nisi shall be made absolute within 14 days from the date of this assessment.