KWONG KAM CHEUNG v. LEE CHEONG DYEING WORKS LIMITED

1983 No. 2300

IN TEN SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

BETWEEN

__________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

__________________________

1. The Plaintiff, now aged 40, sustained an injury to his back while at work on the 2nd May 1980.

2. Documentary evidence in support pursuant to a Notice under 47 Evidence Ordinance consisted of:-

3. He spent 9 days in hospital and then returned to work, but after about 8 months he had to stop work and undergo a course of physiotherapy treatment from the 14th January 1981 to the 2nd November 198T with but a short inter-mission in June 1981.

4. When Dr Wedderburn saw him for the second time on the 31st December 1981 he found a completely normal spine save for one slight the not affecting the inter-vertebral disc.

5. He advised against lifting heavy weights by bending forward, and thought that any further episodes of low back-pain would almost certainly respond to a course of physiotherapy and he agreed with the medical Board's assessment of 2% disability.

6. In answer to my question the Plaintiff told me that his back hurt him very much after work and that he did not think that physiotherapy would help him very much. This is at variance with Dr Wedderburn's remarks in December 1981 that his patient considered he had received great benefit from physiotherapy and that he was then virtually without symptoms.

7. I was impressed by the Plaintiff as an honest witness but in thi particular I am satisfied that he was painting the lily for me.

8. His sick leave certificate expired in October 1981 and he found employment with the Electrical and Mechanical Department of the PWD in November 1981, a very reasonable interval, at $2,040 per month basic compared with his pre-accident earnings of $2,300 per month. He now earns $2,980 per month basic and makes no claim for loss of future earnings, but relies on his disability to ground his claim for handicap in the labour market.

9. The calculations are:-

Loss of Earnings

10. And she referred me to Li Ping Sum's case C.A. 33/83 as authority for a 50% increase due to inflation.

11. She did not feel herself able to bring the Plaintiff's case within the category of injuries described in Li Ting Lam's case C.A. 11/80 and I agree that it is too slight a disability for that.

12. I allow $30,000 for his pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

13. Finally I come to his handicap in the labour market. Miss Lauder produced to me certain tables in HKLJ 1984 at pages 121 to 123, where multipliers of 13-15 years were given, besides Lam Yuen v. Wat Kit Ping trading as International Heading and Embroidery Manufactory SCA 1982/7602 where a multiplier of 14 was given in respect of a 40 years old man.

14. Since however there is neither claim for nor evidence of future loss of earnings I simply allow a sum of $10,000 under this head.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

BETWEEN

Coram: Master Crawshaw in Chambers

Appearance: Mrs Lauder of D.L.A. for Plaintiff

Messrs John Ku & Tam for Defendant

Date of Hearing: 8th January 1985

Date of Delivery: 22nd January 1985

____________

ADDENDUM

____________

15. Interest on special damages at 7% from date of accident and on general damages at 2% from date of service of writ and credit to be given by the Plaintiff under Employee Compensation Ordinance for the sum of $12,215.55 being payment made by employer to Plaintiff as employee.

16. Dated this 3rd day of April, 1985.