YUNG CHOI YING VIVIAN v. YUEN YUET SHEUNG TRACY t/a INN GALLERY

DCCJ5134/2003

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5134 OF 2003

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________________

1. This is my assessment of damages in District Court Civil Jurisdiction No. 5143 of 2003.

2. Interlocutory judgment against the defendant in default of notice of intention to defend was entered on application by the plaintiff to the court on 10 October 2003. At today's hearing an assessment of damages is heard. The defendant is absent in spite of notices served on him and the hearing was conducted in his absence. I am satisfied that the defendant has notice of the hearing date.

3. The plaintiff, Miss Yung, gave evidence on the incomplete and unsatisfactory work on her apartment by the defendant who contracted to perform renovation work on her apartment at a sum of $585,091. The work was divided in a number of stages and payments in respect of each stage were to be paid upon completion of each stage. Following this agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, the plaintiff, Miss Yung, paid a total of three payments in the sum of $292,546 to the defendant during the course of the work.

4. Miss Yung was not happy and was not satisfied with the slow progress of the work which was supposed to complete on 10 May 2003 and on the contracted date of completion Miss Yung found the work was far from complete and she obtained a surveyor's report to make a valuation of the work done. It is Miss Yung's evidence that a lot of the items were not done or was incomplete. Her evidence is supported by the surveyor's report. The surveyor's report valued the work performed, including the materials delivered but not yet installed. The surveyor's report further took into account the work the defendant promised to supply free of charge and damages done to the plaintiff's furniture due to failure to cover the windows and damage done to the leakages due to the opening done to the roof not having been waterproofed by the defendant. These are valued at $57,700.

5. The surveyor also valued the renovation work performed at $29,300 and after taking into account the valuation of the work done and completed and deduction of the value of the damages and the work that was supposed to be done free but not done, the completed work done is valued at $186,454.

6. The plaintiff claims overpayment of $106,092. This is resulted from the deduction of the payment she paid ($292,546) by 186,454. The plaintiff further claims damages for the loss of rental during the remedial and incomplete work being done for two months and each month's rental of $15,000, a total of two months is $30,000, rates and management fees for two months and these are respectively 1,988.87 and $3,734 management fees. The cost of the valuation report is $6,000. The cost of repairing the roof and the window $2,000. The loss of garden furniture $3,353. The locks $2,456, bed rests $1,396 and floor tiles $1,908. Totalling $52,129.87.

7. The total claim as amended by Mr Lam, counsel for the plaintiff, is $106,092 plus $52,129.87 and the total sum comes to $158,221.87.

8. I accept the valuation of the work performed and those not performed valued by the surveyor as set out in the report to be correct and I find the assessment reasonable. The assessment therefore comes to $158,221.87.

9. Interest of the sum of $106,092 payable from the date of acceptance of the breach of contract, that is 10 May 2003, at 2 per cent per annum, to the date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate. As to the sum of $52,129.87, interest to be payable from the date of writ to the date of judgment at half judgment rate and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

10. The cost to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.