SANDRA CHRISTELLE JACKIE LAUJIN v. PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY CARE (H.K.) LTD

DCCJ3872/2017

[2018] HKDC 1061

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO.3872 OF 2017

____________

____________

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

1.  On 30 Aug 2017, the plaintiff commenced these proceedings to recover from defendant company various sums of money arising out of renovation to her flat (the Flat) situated at Serene Court, 35 Sai Ning Street, Kennedy Town, Hong Kong (the Building). The defendant did not give intention to defend. On 15 Dec 2017, interlocutory judgment was entered against it for damages to be assessed and costs.

2.  The said assessment of damages (AOD) came before this court. The plaintiff appeared acting in person. The unrepresented defendant was absent.

3.  Having read the assessment bundle, including affirmations of service therein, the court file, heard the plaintiff in the box on defendant’s latest registered office address and obtained plaintiff’s undertaking[1], this court was satisfied that the defendant was duly notified of this AOD hearing and proceeded with it in defendant’s absence as the plaintiff requested.

Evidence

4.  The plaintiff orally opened her case. She elected to give evidence. She adopted her witness statement filed on 21 Feb 2018. With leave of court, she elaborated on 2 paragraphs of her statement. Afterwards, she answered questions of this court. She did not re-examine and proceeded to make oral closing submissions.

5.  Among other plaintiff’s documents in the assessment bundle is a survey report dated 13 Apr 2018 (the survey report) prepared by Mr Chang Ka Chung, a chartered quantity surveyor (Mr Chang), who adopted the valuation of renovation works completed at the Flat (the Works) and of materials stored there made in a valuation report dated 14 July 2017 (the valuation report) prepared by KCI Management Consultancy Ltd. (KCI).

6.  By order of Master David Chan dated 26 Mar 2018, the plaintiff was allowed to adduce expert evidence on quantum of the Works (the expert nominated is Mr Chang) and, unless the court otherwise directs, the survey report was to adduced in the AOD hearing without calling its maker.

7.  For obvious reason, no defence evidence was adduced at this hearing. Indeed, by Order of Master S.P. Yip dated 29 Jan 2018, the defendant was barred from adducing documentary evidence, witness statements and expert evidence for its failure to file list of documents and witness statement as to quantum, and failure to take out application for expert evidence, within time.

Assessment of evidence

8.  Looking at CV of Mr Chang, this court is satisfied that he was qualified and experienced enough to give expert opinion on quantum of the Works. But I think “storage” charges claimed by defendant (for storing plaintiff’s belongings elsewhere than the Flat) do not require valuation by expert quantity surveyor and they fall outside the expertise of Mr Chang.

9.  Moreover, the valuation report was prepared by Mr Chang on behalf of KCI. Unlike section 5 of the survey report, he gave no declaration of duty to court in the valuation report. Though he declared in paragraph 1.5 of the survey report that his preparation of the valuation report caused no conflict of interest, this court still takes that into account in considering the weight, if any, to be given to his expert opinion.

10.  That said, the photos and measurements taken by KCI at the Flat on 3 July 2017 (found at Appendix 4, and illustrated by plans at Appendix 3, to the valuation report) provide, I think, valuable objective evidence as to the extent of the Works done, and of materials stored, at the Flat up to such date. They provide, I think, a sound and reliable basis for Mr Chang to give his opinion.

11.  For other documents in the assessment bundle, unless otherwise indicated below, this court generally accepts their contents and give them full weight.

12.  Regarding plaintiff’s evidence, while some of them are supported by documents produced before this court, some of them are not. There appears to be other correspondences than those in the bundle regarding the scope of renovation works proposed to be done at the Flat passing between the parties from Feb to May 2017 but they are not produced before this court.

13.  For plaintiff’s claim of alleged damaged personal belongings (i.e. antique Chinese coffee tea table, mattress and chest of drawers), she put no documentary proof of their purchase or acquisition price before this court.

14.  No record (including photographic record) of their conditions prior to defendant’s storage of them was put before this court, though photos of them after their return to plaintiff were put before this court.

15.  These photos produced did not, however, show the alleged damaged condition of the chest of drawers as claimed. While some dirt or dark spots were shown appearing on the mattress on photos, this court wonders if the same could be removed by cleaning and, if so, the costs thereof.

16.  If indeed the Chinese coffee table shown in photos was damaged as claimed, one does not know whether it is antique as claimed and, if so, what its value was. The 3 eBay web search results of coffee table put before this court are, I think, of no use unless there is also expert evidence of antique identification, comparison and valuation before this court (but there is none).

17.  At the end of the day, the plaintiff has not explained sufficiently, if at all, how she came up with the 3 claimed sums of $30,000, $2,000 & $4,000 for these 3 pieces of alleged damaged belongings. I decide to give no weight to plaintiff’s evidence on this head of claim.

18.  I also give no weight to another piece of plaintiff’s evidence. She claimed to hear over the phone on 20 June 2017 from staff of Afford Assurance Agency Ltd. (the Agent) that it held no record of “contractors’ all risks and employees’ compensation” policy issued to the defendant for the Works[2].

19.  Though such “hearsay” is admissible at law, all things considered, I give no weight to it as the staff of the Agent had not been called as a witness and no document from the Agent or from the insurer was adduced to verify such “hearsay”.

20.  Nevertheless, this court finds on balance on other evidence that the defendant had not purchased insurance for the Works on behalf of the plaintiff. Despite a quotation of such insurance was sought by way of a quotation request form to be referred below, defendant’s solicitors, Messrs. Yip, Tse & Tang (defendant’s solicitors), had not produced any proof of payment/cover despite plaintiff’s demand. I draw the adverse inference against the defendant on this point.

21.  On the whole, I accept only such part of plaintiff’s evidence as indicated below.

Findings of facts

22.  I find the material facts as follows. Since Feb 2012, the plaintiff has been the registered owner of the Flat. At all material times prior to her moving out below, she resided at the Flat. The Flat has 1 living and dining room, 1 kitchen, 1 bathroom, and 2 bedrooms, with a total gross floor area of 582 square feet[3].

23.  The defendant carried on at all material times a business of, among others, domestic refurbishments and interior design.

24.  By defendant’s letter to plaintiff dated 13 Feb 2017 headed “apartment refurbishment”, the parties entered into a contract in writing (the contract), with the plaintiff agreeing to defendant’s initial quotation of scope of works at the Flat (the Initial Quotation) and the defendant agreeing to carry out the quoted works.

25.  The scope of works in the Initial Quotation was grouped into 10 sections and most sections had several sub-items.

A)    Sections 1 (contractor’s all risks and employees’ compensation/scaffold insurance) and 2 (carpentry) were both stated “to be confirmed” with no amount put down.

B)   Section 3 (finishes – floor), 4 (finishes – ceilings/walls), 5 (bathroom), 6 (kitchen) each had a total lump sum figure put down for the section, but with no breakdown for the individual sub-items in each section nor any estimate of the quantity of works to be done or piece rate to be applied for the items.

C)   Section 7 (erecting 1-side scaffolding with safety certificate and various sub-items with air-conditioning units and pipework etc.), 8 (cleaning of air-conditioning units), 9 (removal of works materials from site to land fill) and 10 (removal of all exterior window sill renders/waterproof and fitting blinds etc.) were all “option” with each having a total lump sum figure and no breakdown for individual sub-items in sections 7, 8 & 10.

D)   The lump-sum amounts in sections 3 to 10 add up to $198,300.

26.  Under the Initial Quotation, “works should take between 10-21 days, dependent on material supply/order time”. After order confirmation and return of signed contract, another visit to the Flat was to be arranged “to order the materials and schedule the works”, including confirming working times, “as this will allow the [defendant] to be more accurate with time-scale (italics supplied)”.

27.  On or about 14 Feb 2017, by a form, quotation of “contractor’s all risks and employees’ compensation” insurance for “interior refurbishment with scaffolding works and outside wall works” at the Flat[4] was requested from Bank of China Group Insurance Company Ltd. through the Agent with defendant being the contractor and plaintiff being the principal (the Quotation Form).

28.  On or about 15 Feb 2017, the plaintiff paid $118,980 to the defendant for the Works.

29.  On 20 Mar 2017, the plaintiff booked, and paid Airbnb a total of $30,177 for, 31 nights of stays (from 17 Apr 2017 to 18 May 2017, at $922.63 per night plus service fee) at a host premises at Square Street, Hong Kong.

30.  On or about 28 March 2017, the plaintiff paid another $24,600 to the defendant for the Works, making a total payment of $143,580 to the defendant.

31.  On or about 17 Apr 2017, the plaintiff moved from the Flat (and stayed at booked host premises) to allow the defendant to carry out the Works. On about 18 April 2017, the defendant commenced the Works.

32.  About a week later, by defendant’s letter to plaintiff dated 25 April 2017, it sought plaintiff’s decisions on, among others, “removing” the kitchen, “ripping out” the bathroom, “knocking through” the walls and “adding” another set of scaffolding.

33.  In the said letter, the scope of works in the Initial Quotation was amended, with lump sums put down for sections 1 (in the sum of $9,462) & 2, a new section 4, a new section 7 (kitchen: option one),  works for new air-conditioning pipework and cleaning of air-conditioner removed, removal of works materials to land fill and exterior window sills works no longer being “option”, a new section 13 for additional scaffold[5] and, finally, a new section 14 in the sum of $6,400 for “additional works inside the [Flat], moving items, covering items, dismantle of furniture, wrapping items etc. (my italics)”.

34.  The defendant wrote in the said letter that it had to inform the insurer of any changes, including changes to contract time scale (said to be “presently 2 months plus one-month maintenance”) as “it might change the premium payable”.

35.  On 5 May 2017, the plaintiff booked, and paid Airbnb a total of $55,589.04 for, additional 61 nights (from 20 May 2017 to 20 July 2017 at $859.63 per night plus service fee) at a host premises at Kingston Building, Causeway Bay, Hong Kong.

36.  On 14 May 2017, the plaintiff booked, and paid Airbnb a total of $1,683 for, 2 more nights (from 18 May 2017 to 20 May 2017 at $600 per night plus cleaning and service fees) at a host premises at Kam Kwan Building, Des Voeux Road West, Hong Kong.

37.  On or about 23 May 2017, the defendant removed plaintiff’s belongings (including Chinese coffee tea table, mattress and chest of drawers) from the Flat for storage elsewhere. It informed the plaintiff of such removal, but not the location or particulars of the storage facility/company.

38.  On or about 31 May 2017, the defendant wrote the plaintiff another letter headed “final costings for the complete refurbishment” of the Flat and enclosed 7-page-long proposed scope of works at the Flat with 115 individual items with quantity and individual price (if applicable) put down for each item (the 2^nd Quotation).

A)   Items 1-7 entitled “preliminaries & demolition” totaling $74,508 was stated to have been “completed”.

B)    Items 8-24[6] entitled “general & demolition” totaling $66,150 was also so stated.

C)   The remaining items were wide-ranging, covering living room, bedroom, new kitchen, waterproofing, electrical, plumbing, drainage, windows and air-conditioning works.

D)   Item 114 in the sum of $13,750 was to “provide labour, transport and storage for 2 months (my italics)” and was also said to have been “completed”.

E)   All 115 items added up to $894,363. After giving discount, the total contract sum was stated to be $837,773[7]. Allowing for plaintiff’s pre-payments, and 10% for preliminaries/variation of contract, the balance was put down as $777,966.

39.  The defendant sought plaintiff’s acceptance of the 2^nd Quotation to proceed with the Works with completion “aimed” by “the end of July” 2017. It demanded a deposit of $400,000 forthwith and proposed a schedule of interim[8] and final[9] payments. And it wrote that new insurance premium figure would be advised[10] after contacting the broker.

40.  On or about 2 June 2017, the plaintiff by WhatsApp message informed defendant that, having read the 2^nd Quotation, she could not afford its amount[11] and asked if adjustment could be made of its scope of works.

41.  In response, the defendant said it will stop the Works and invoiced for such works completed if plaintiff did not proceed on the 2^nd Quotation. On or about 2 June 2017, it withdrew workers from the Flat and stopped the Works. And it suggested the plaintiff to find another contractor.

42.  On or about 3 June 2017, the plaintiff by WhatsApp message asked defendant about contact particulars of storage and scaffolding companies.

43.  By letter dated 10 June 2017, the defendant sent the plaintiff an invoice (the Final Invoice) demanding immediate payment of $119,705 (after giving credit for plaintiff’s pre-payment) for: -

A)   3 items of alleged completed works (same to items 1 to 24 of the 2^nd Quotation, an item 115 same to item 114 of the 2^nd Quotation in the same sum of $13,750, and $44,000 for “consultancy, administration, site visits and designs”; and

B)   6 items of on-site materials, or alleged partially completed items, more particularized therein[12].

These 9 items were worth in total $263,478, it was claimed.

44.  The defendant warned the plaintiff that on-site materials remained its property until paid for and could not be used by others[13], and that it would, after payment, remove the scaffold erected at the Flat (the Scaffold) and return plaintiff’s belongings to her after storage expiry date on 22 July 2017[14]. The Scaffold was, the defendant warned, also its property (whose insurance, it claimed, had been “cancelled”) and it shall not be used/accessed by others. If immediate payment is not forthcoming, said the defendant, it would “remove” plaintiff’s belongings from the storage facility.

45.  By an email to defendant dated 10 June 2017, the plaintiff demanded contact details of storage company and her belongings to remain there up to 22 July 2017.

46.  By another email to defendant dated 12 June 2017, the plaintiff sought clarification of the Final Invoice and repeated her demand for contact details of storage and scaffolding companies. Failing defendant’s reply, she reported to police. The police then discussed with the defendant.

47.  By letter dated 14 June 2017, the defendant gave notice to plaintiff that it would return her belongings to lower basement of the Building between 1400 and 1500 hours, and repeated its earlier demand of storage fee of $13,750 in the form of an invoice.

48.  At 1354 hours, the plaintiff by email complained of defendant’s short notice for return of her belongings and payment sought for their return, and again demanded contact details of storage company to arrange herself for their return.

49.  Notwithstanding plaintiff’s protest, the defendant returned and unloaded plaintiff’s belongings, including coffee tea table, mattress and chest of drawers (stored in cartoon boxes) at lower basement (car parks) of the Building in the afternoon. Photos of these returned belongings in the said basement were taken and produced before this court.

50.  The plaintiff had to pay $3,000 to Yun Kee Transportation Company on 14 June 2017 to remove her belongings away from the carparks of the Building.

51.  On 19 June 2017, defendant’s solicitors wrote to plaintiff threatening proceedings if the Final Invoice was not paid and reiterated defendant’s warning on on-site materials and the Scaffold, which would be, they said, demolished on payment (including $13,750 storage fee and $9,462 insurance premium alleged paid) within 48 hours.

52.  In reply, the plaintiff, in her email dated 21 June 2017, among others, sought clarifications of the Final Invoice again, pro-rata adjustment of premium on policy prematurely terminated by defendant, demanded proof of payment/coverage within 48 hours (on grounds that the Agent orally confirmed no policy, with the Form enclosed) and sought pro-rata adjustment of storage fee as defendant terminated storage before its expiry date.

53.  The plaintiff told defendant’s solicitors that she would take over the Scaffold and deal directly with the scaffolding contractor i.e. Miu Sum Scaffolding Ltd. (Miu Sum). She demanded proof of payment to Miu Sum within 48 hours.

54.  By letter to plaintiff dated 22 June 2017, defendant’s solicitors made final demand of the Final Invoice and claimed plaintiff’s queries had all been answered and all points clarified. By email dated 25 Jun 2017 to defendant’s solicitors, plaintiff put on record defendant had not fully clarified as claimed.

55.  The defendant had in fact, I find, not purchased insurance or paid premium of $9,462 for the Works as claimed.

56.  On 3 July 2017, on plaintiff’s instructions, KCI inspected the Flat, took photographs (which were annexed to the valuation report as Appendix 4) and measurements (with plans annexed as Appendix 3) to prepare the valuation report. These photos and plans as explained in Appendix 2 of the valuation report accurately recorded the Works completed, fully or partially, and uncompleted, and quantity of materials stored, at the Flat by that day.

57.  The defendant had not fully or partially completed the Works as it claimed in the Final Invoice. For example, item 8 of the 2^nd Quotation[15]included “application of waterproof membranes”. But the defendant had not done such waterproofing. Item 16 of the 2^nd Quotation read “hack off existing ceiling cornice”. But the defendant had only partially removed cornice to a length of about 7.88m.

58.  By the date of inspection, only a relatively small amount of materials (10 bags of cement, 100 bags of sand and 142 number of brick) remained at the Flat.

59.  Much of the Works done, or most items of the Final Invoice, did not appear in full or at all in the Initial Quotation. For instance, section 7 of the Initial Quotation provided an “option” in the lump sum of $45,725 for 1-side scaffold erection and air-conditioning works etc. As it turned out, the Scaffold was 3-sided scaffold (not to mention defendant claimed in the Final Invoice $34,980 for “erection and removal of scaffolding”, and it had never “removed” the Scaffold, see below).

60.  To give another example, item 5 of the Final Invoice read “erect half brick wall” and the defendant completed a short section[16] of brick wall without plastering. Such brick wall was nowhere found in the Initial Quotation.

61.  The defendant had charged in the Final Invoice items for connection of temporary lighting[17], consultancy, administration, site visits and designs[18] nowhere charged in the Initial Quotation. The same applied to item 2 of the Final Invoice i.e. an item 115 in sum of $13,750 to“provide labour, transport and storage for 2 months [completed]”, which item appeared only for the first time on 31 May 2017 as item 114 of the 2^nd Quotation.

62.  About half of those charged as item 1 of the Final Invoice, by way of items 8 to 24 of the 2^nd Quotation entitled “general and demolition” and billed in a total lump sum of $66,150 all “inclusive”, required the defendant to “hack off”, “dismantle”, “demolish” and “remove” various items, and photos in the valuation report showed that much had been removed, and little rebuilt, at the Flat by 3 July 2017. While the Initial Quotation also provided for the defendant to “remove”, “strip off”, “dismantle” divers items, they appeared as individual sub-items in different sections, with only lump sum put down for the whole section and no breakdown for these individual sub-items in terms of quantity or piece-rate to be applied.

63.  Item 6 of the 2^nd Quotation i.e. “removal of all rubbish (new works) inclusive of HKSAR disposal waste charges”[19] was in the sum of $10,000. But section 9 “option” of “removal of works materials from site to a registered land fill site” in the Initial Quotation was only in the sum of $4,200.

64.  Last but not least, the defendant charged the plaintiff $9,462 in the Final Invoice for insurance premium allegedly paid for policy for the Works but it had never paid it nor purchased the policy.

65.  On or about 7 July 2017, the plaintiff entered into a construction agreement for residential home renovation (the new agreement) with Fine Master Group Ltd. (the new contractor) for the latter to carry out and complete works at the Flat as per specifications thereof (which covered widow replacement and living room but did not include erection of scaffolding) at a price of $448,116, which works shall commence on 10 July 2017 and be completed by 30 Sept 2017. On or about 10 July 2017, the new contractor commenced works at the Flat pursuant to the new agreement and made use of the Scaffold.

66.  On or about 14 July 2017, KCI provided the plaintiff with the valuation report. The plaintiff paid $15,000 to KCI on 18 July 2017 for it.

67.  On 17 July 2017, defendant’s solicitors gave its last warning to the plaintiff by email. On 21 July 2017, the plaintiff replied defendant’s solicitors enclosing the valuation report, pointed to the valuation therein and defendant’s failure to provide proof of insurance payment/cover, and demanded refund from defendant.

68.  By letter dated 3 Jan 2018, the manager of the Building demanded the plaintiff to dismantle the Scaffold after completion of works at the Flat. The plaintiff later arranged Master Hong Scaffolding to dismantle the Scaffold and paid it $11,500 on or about 27 Jan 2018 for such removal.

Plaintiff’s heads of claim

1)   Refund of overpaid sums, including insurance premium

69.  A claim of quantum meruit[20] may arise in the following circumstances: First, there may be no contract between the parties but a contractor carried out works at the behest and for the benefit of the employer. Additional works may have been carried out and they cannot reasonably be regarded as included in the scope of the original contract. Secondly, a contractor has carried out works but the contract does not specify the price to be paid. Thirdly, the contract does not specify the rates and prices to be used in valuation of varied works: Chitty on Contracts, Hong Kong Specific Contracts, 5^th (2016) Ed., para 8-188.

70.  The sum paid to a contractor making a claim under quantum meruit should be the fair commercial rate for the work done in the circumstances. Expert evidence may assist in the interpretation of a reasonable sum: Chitty on Contracts, Hong Kong Specific Contracts, supra, para 8-190.

71.  On my findings and the above principles, the defendant is, I think, entitled to be paid for the Works and materials at the Flat only on quantum meruit basis and the plaintiff is entitled to recover such excess the defendant had been unjustly enriched at her expenses.

72.  The contract by way of the Initial Quotation, or the Initial Quotation, plainly cannot, I think, apply to the Works or the value of the materials kept at the Flat for their differences in scope of works, and for omission of quantity or piece-rate for individual sub-items that one can apply to work out the price for the Works and materials. And the parties had plainly not agreed on the 2^nd Quotation.

73.  The valuation in the valuation report was based on “fair and reasonable rates for similar works in the market”[21]. I find such valuation helpful in assessing such reasonable amount due to the defendant on quantum meruit basis.

74.  For Mr Chang’s expert valuation opinion on the amounts claimed in the Final Invoice set out in Appendix 1 of the valuation report (and explained in Appendix 2 thereof), I accept his opinion, observations and valuation for items 2 to 24, A3 to A10 and give them full weight. The defendant is thus entitled to be paid $56,819.9 for these items on quantum meruit basis.

75.  For item 1 at Appendix 1 regarding insurance premium, on my findings, the defendant is not entitled to be paid $9,462 it claimed in the Final Invoice.

76.  For item 115 at Appendix 1 outside expertise of Mr Chang, absent parties’ agreement on consideration for such storage or agreed mechanism for its determination, a reasonable charge[22] remains, I think, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant: see s.7(1) of Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance, Cap.457.

77.  Absent detailed plaintiff’s evidence on the quantity and particulars of her belongings removed and warehoused, I allow a sum of $8,000 for their removal, storage up to 14 June 2017 and return to carparks of the Building on 14 June 2017.

78.  Hence, I award $78,760.1 for this 2 heads of plaintiff’s claim, calculated as $143,580 - $8,000 - $56,819.9.

2)   Costs of the valuation report

79.  I allow the claimed amount of $15,000 in full. This sum was, I think, reasonable in amount and reasonably incurred by the plaintiff in the circumstances.

3)   Costs of dismantling the Scaffold

80.  For item 4 at Appendix 1 (as explained in Appendix 2) of the valuation report, the defendant is only paid or allowed $15,000 for “erection” of the Scaffold and not for its “removal”. I can see no basis for the plaintiff to recover from the defendant such sum spent by her in her own removal of it after her own use. This claim is declined.

4)   Costs of removing plaintiff’s belongings away from carpark

81.  For similar reasons, considering paragraphs 76 & 77 above, I also do not think the defendant can be held liable for such costs incurred by plaintiff in her own removal of her belongings away from carparks of the Building on 14 June 2017. This claim is also declined.

5)   Damages for alleged damaged plaintiff’s belongings

82.  For reasons at paragraphs 13 to 17 above, I also decline this claim for want of sufficient evidence.

6)   Costs of plaintiff’s alternative accommodation

83.  The plaintiff confines her claim here for the period from 25 Apr 2017 (the date defendant wrote to plaintiff enclosing an amended Initial Quotation seeking various decisions from her) to 10 July 2017 (the date the new contractor commenced works at the Flat pursuant to the new agreement) i.e. a period of 77 nights only.

84.  While the defendant had repudiated the contract by stopping the Works, the contract provides, I think, no fixed date of completion. Notwithstanding the Initial Quotation, the defendant had apparently had to make further suggestions as to scope of works to be done at the Flat for plaintiff to decide. The defendant did so by its letter dated 25 Apr 2017. But it was not agreed upon and it came up with the 2^nd Quotation for plaintiff’s decision on 31 May 2017.

85.  Save for her WhatsApp message as late as on 2 June 2017, the plaintiff never gave evidence nor produced earlier documents showing her response to defendant’s letter dated 25 Apr 2017. She gave no evidence, nor produced correspondences written by her at the material times, complaining to defendant of delayed completion, fixing a deadline for completion and/or complaining to defendant of consequential increased accommodation expenses[23].

86.  Hence, such accommodation expenses incurred by plaintiff before 2 Jun 2017 cannot, I think, be attributable to defendant’s default and are not recoverable. I only allow plaintiff’s claim on this head for the period from 2 June 2017 to 10 July 2017 i.e. a total of 38 nights. While the daily average rate of $911.28[24] claimed by the plaintiff for this period is relatively high, I allow it as it was sometimes more costly to obtain accommodation of short duration than longer one.

87.  I award the sum of $34,628.64 for this head of claim, calculated as $911.28 x 38 nights.

Summary

88.  The total amount of damages the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff is $128,388.74, calculated as $34,628.64 + $15,000 + $78,760.1.

Disposition

89.  I therefore enter judgment in plaintiff’s favour against the defendant in the sum of $128,388.74 together with interest at 6% p.a. from 30 Aug 2017 to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

Costs

90.   Costs normally follow the event and I see nothing to depart from this general rule. I make an order nisi that the defendant do pay the plaintiff the costs of AOD, including all costs reserved and the costs of this hearing before me, and such costs are to be taxed if not agreed. Such order nisi will become absolute should none applies in writing within 14 days from the date hereof to vary it.