JIP WO TRADING & DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TSUI KAM FAT t/a KUI FAT VEHICLE CO

DCCJ 2899 / 2007

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2899 OF 2007

________________________

________________________

Judgment on Quantum

Background

1. The Plaintiff (“P”) delivered to the Defendant’s garage (“D”) in Shek Kong in the New Territories a Mercedes Benz S500 motor car (“the car”) on the 26th September 2006 whereby D contracted with P to spray-paint the car for a fee which P stated to be $3,000 and which has not been in dispute.  About 4 days later when P demanded for the return of the car, D stated that the same had been lost.  A report was made to the Police.  P now claims a sum of $220,000 representing the sale value of the car which had been agreed to by his buyer, together with interest and costs.  The case is one of “bailment for reward” the law of which is clear.  Liability was entered against D on the 4th August 2007, and this Court now needs to assess quantum.  D was absent at today’s trial despite the papers having been served to him as early as the 6th December 2007 (3.5 months before today), proof of service being available in the court file.  I note that D was also absent on the last occasion viz 29th November 2007 when today’s hearing was set down.

The evidence

2. P’s director Mr Fung (PW1) adopted his witness statement dated 7th March 2008 as testimony-in-chief.  He conceded a sum of $3,000 being spray-painting fees which had been quoted to him by D at the time the car was delivered to D’s garage, and so P’s principal claim is now reduced to $217,000.  PW1 produced the Invoice, dated the 26th September 2006, evidencing P’s contract to sell the car to purchaser Mr Law Kwong (羅光) for $220,000 which sale was to be completed shortly after spray-painting had been done.

3. As mentioned above D was absent at trial.

Findings

4. P’s evidence is consistent and credible.  His testimony is supported by the relevant documents showing the source of his car and the mode of delivery from the USA, as well as a contract for sale to the abovementioned Mr Law on the 26th September 2006.  Later the same day P delivered the car to D for spray-painting to the bonnet and mud-guards, together with waxing of the chassis.

5. I find P’s willingness to reduce its claim from the resale value of the car ($220,000) by the cost of spray-painting ($3,000) to be entirely reasonable and honest.

Summary

6. Accordingly I make the following Assessment on quantum and Orders: