KO HOK YUEN v. SZE CHING SHONG AND ANOTHER

DCCJ 2207/2021

[2024] HKDC 1271

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2207 OF 2021

———————————————

BETWEEN

————————————————

————————————————

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

————————————————

Introduction

1.  This is an assessment of damages of property damage caused to a vehicle.

2.  The Plaintiff is the registered owner of a private car with the registration number EP6470 (the “Vehicle”), who claims damages arising out of a traffic accident on 17 January 2018 at Siu Lek Yuen Road, Shatin, New Territories (the “Accident”). In the Accident, the Vehicle was hit and damaged by a private car with the registration number GK361 (“D’s Vehicle”) causing loss to the Plaintiff. At the time of the Accident, the 1^st Defendant was the driver and the 2^nd Defendant his employer.

3.  On 12 May 2021, the Plaintiff issued a Writ of Summons to claim for loss and damages suffered in the Accident against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants.

4.  As no notice of intention to defend was given by either of the Defendants, interlocutory judgments are entered into against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants on 27 September 2022 and 12 July 2021 respectively, with damages to be assessed and costs.

5.  On 2 December 2022, the Plaintiff issued a Notice of Appointment of Assessment of Damages against the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants. Directions were given as to trial. At the hearing of assessment of damages, the Defendants were both absent.

6.  Mr Tse of Messrs Leung & Lau, appearing for the Plaintiff has confirmed that the Order dated 15 December 2023 setting out the date and time of the hearing, the hearing bundle, and the Plaintiff’s submissions had all been served on both the Defendants.

7.  Having considered the affirmation of service filed on the Plaintiff’s behalf on 5 February 2024, I am satisfied that, the Defendants had been properly notified of the hearing. I proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Defendants.

The Plaintiff’s Claim

8.  The Plaintiff’s claim is for (a) HK$ 240,000 being the repair costs of the Vehicle, and (b) HK$ 900 being the motor survey fee.

9.  By way of an Order dated 28 September 2023, the Court gave leave for the Plaintiff to adduce expert evidence on quantum and to file and serve the Motor Survey Report (the “Report”) prepared by Mr Sammy W H Lee of Toplis and Harding (Hong Kong) Limited (the “Motor Surveyor”) dated 20 February 2018. At the hearing, upon the Plaintiff’s application, I allow the Plaintiff to adduce the report as part of the Plaintiff’s evidence without calling the maker thereof.

10.  Ms Liu Tak Yee (“Ms Liu”) gave evidence as the Plaintiff’s witness at the hearing of assessment of damages. She adopted her witness statement filed on 30 May 2023 as evidence-in-chief.

11.  At the material times, she was the Senior Claims Services Specialist of AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited (the “Insurer”). She was responsible for handling the claim and gave evidence relying on the documents and records of the Company.

12.  The Insurer received the claim from the Plaintiff on 18 January 2018 together with the quotation of Zung Fu Company Limited (“Zung Fu”). The Insurer then instructed the Motor Surveyor to inspect the Vehicle to assess its repair costs.

13.  On 2 February 2018, there was an inspection of the Vehicle and it was reported inter alia that its rear and nearside body has sustained impact damage. Photos were taken at the inspection and included in the Report. According to the Report, the Motor Surveyor estimated the costs of repair of the Vehicle at HK$ 240,000.

14.  Further, the Report estimated the pre-accident market value of the Vehicle is in the range of HK$ 270,000 to 280,000 and the scrap value is in the range of HK$ 25,000 to 30,000. Therefore, the Motor Surveyor is of the view that it is more economical to have the damaged vehicle repaired than to treat it as a total loss. I have considered that the Vehicle was a 2016 model and at the time of the Accident, it had been used for less than 2 years. The impact damage to the Vehicle was not serious as shown in the photos attached to the Report. In the circumstances, I accept the opinion stated in the Report that it is reasonable for the Plaintiff to carry out repairs of his car instead of treating it as a total loss.

15.  After the said inspection, Zung Fu accepted the adjustment by the Motor Surveyor on 15 February 2018 and proceeded to repair the Vehicle. Ms Liu’s evidence is that, Zung Fu received HK$ 240,000 after completing the repair of the Vehicle, out of which HK$ 234,000 was paid by the Insurer and HK$ 6,000 was paid by the Plaintiff as the policy excess.

16.  The Plaintiff also produced receipts of the two payments made to Zung Fu, the sum of HK$ 234,000 paid on 21 June 2018, and the sum of HK$ 6,000 paid on 23 January 2019.

17.  Ms Liu gave evidence that, the Insurer has also paid Toplis and Harding (Hong Kong) Limited HK$ 900 for the inspection of the Vehicle and the assessment of the repair costs. The Plaintiff produced the invoice and receipt of the said payment.

18.  Ms Liu’s evidence and the Report are unchallenged by the Defendants and supported by contemporaneous records. I accept her evidence and the expert evidence of the Motor Surveyor stated in the Report in their entirety.

19.  Therefore, I find that the Plaintiff and/or the Insurer have incurred (a) repair costs of the Vehicle at HK$ 240,000, and (b) the motor survey fee at HK$ 900. The sums are reasonable and the Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sums in full.

Orders Made

20.  Accordingly, I assess the damages and award the total sum of HK$ 240,900 to the Plaintiff.

21.  As for interests, Mr Tse asks for pre-judgment interest at best lending rate of HSBC from 21 June 2018, being the date when the Insurer paid the repair costs of the Vehicle to Zung Fu, to the date of this judgment, and thereafter at judgment rate until payment in full. I find that the Plaintiff is entitled to such pre-judgment interest and I so order.

22.  As for costs, the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants should pay the Plaintiff’s costs of the whole action including costs of the assessment and all costs reserved. Having considered the Plaintiff’s Statement of Costs dated 25 January 2024, I summarily assess the Plaintiff’s costs of these proceedings at HK$ 78,402.