TANG CHI PUN v. LEUNG CHI KIN

DCCJ 600/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 600 OF 2013

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

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

REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

1.  The plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant for damages and loss suffered for the damage to his vehicle on 19 February 2013. No notice of intention to defend was given by the defendant. On 31 July 2013, interlocutory judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant with damages to be assessed with costs.

2.  The Notice of Hearing of Assessment of Damages, the order and the documents relating to the assessment of damages (ie List of Documents and the copies of documents contained therein, witness statement) have been duly served on the defendant.  I believe that notice of hearing of the assessment of damages has been brought to the defendant’s attention.  The defendant did not appear in the previous hearing.  On 12 December 2013, he was absent at the assessment hearing.  I allowed the hearing be proceeded in the absence of the defendant.

3.  The plaintiff gave evidence and adopted the contents of his witness statement as his evidence-in-chief.

4.  The plaintiff was the registered owner of a light goods vehicle bearing registration number LA425 (“the P’s Vehicle”).  The defendant was the registered owner of a light goods vehicle bearing registration number MG9700 (“the D’s Vehicle”).

5.  On 16 September 2010, the defendant was driving the D’s Vehicle along the Lion Rock Tunnel Road following the P’s Vehicle.  A private vehicle bearing registration number NZ8795 (“the Private Vehicle ”) was travelling in front of the P’s Vehicle.  The defendant so negligently drove the D’s Vehicle that he caused the offside front of it to run into the nearside rear part of the P’s Vehicle, pushing it forward to ram into the rear part of the Private Vehicle before coming to a halt.  The defendant was later convicted of the offence of “Careless Driving” as a result of the accident on 24 January 2011.

6.  The plaintiff claims three items of loss and damages in this action.

7.  The plaintiff said that the P’s Vehicle was seriously damaged as a result of the accident.  On 27 September 2010, the plaintiff sent it to Mandarin Auto Services Ltd (“the Service Company”) for inspection and repair work.  He also arranged General Surveyors & Adjusters Limited (“GSA”) to inspect the damage of it and take photos of it on the same day.

8.  The Service Company, in its quotation, estimated the costs of the labour for repair work and the replacement parts were HK$44,300 and HK$94,631 respectively, a total of HK$138,931.

9.  GSA, in its survey report dated 8 October 2010 (“the GSA Report”), stated that both ends of the P’s Vehicle were damaged.  It adjusted the costs of the labour and the replacement parts estimated by the Service Company to HK$27,500 and HK$59,483 respectively, a total of HK$86,983.  With a 35% allowance for betterment on the cost of the replacements, the repair costs was finally adjusted to HK$66,164.

10.  The plaintiff instructed the Service Company to repair the P’s Vehicle according to the GSA Report and subsequently settled the service fee for the repair work of HK$66,164.  He also paid GSA for the GSA Report in the sum of HK$700.

11.  The damage of the P’s Vehicle as a result of the accident is evidenced by the GSA Report and the photos annexed to it.  All the payments as above mentioned are supported by invoices and receipts produced.  I accept the documentary and oral evidence given by the plaintiff.  I am satisfied that the amount is reasonable.  The defendant is liable for such expenses.

12.  As to the fee for the vehicle registration search of the D’s Vehicle of HK$45, the search was obtained for the purpose of this action.  It should form part of the plaintiff’s costs and not damages.

13.  Having considered all the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the claim should be allowed for the sum of HK$66,864 with breakdown as follows and I therefore award the plaintiff:-

(a) the repair costs of HK$66,164; and

(b) service fee of GSA of HK$700.

14.  I order that interest be awarded at the rate of 8% per annum on the sum of HK$66,864 from the date of the writ (19 February 2013) to the date of the interlocutory judgment (31 July 2013) and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

15.  There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.  I order that the defendant do pay the plaintiff costs of the action (including the assessment of damages) summarily assessed at HK$16,000.