GURUNG TIKI MAYA v. SHUM SHING CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

HCPI 168/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 168 OF 2008

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

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

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Introduction

1. On 11 April 2005 the plaintiff went to work in a construction site at the proposed commercial/residential development at TWTL 398, Tai Ho Road/Yeung Uk Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong (“the site”). The 2^nd defendant was the principal contractor of the site.  The 1^st defendant was the sub-contractor of the 2^nd defendant.

2. The plaintiff was employed by the 1^st defendant as a concrete finisher to do concrete leveling work which included plastering. 

3. On 11 April 2005 the plaintiff was instructed to do the concrete leveling work on the podium floor between Block 5 and Block 6 at the site.  She commenced the concrete leveling work in the evening of 11 April 2005.  She was alone at the site and there was no one supervising her.  As part of her duties she had to level concrete which had been poured onto the floor of the podium.

4. There was a tower crane at each block.  The crane was mounted with spotlights on the jib and slewing ring.  In addition to this, there were two temporary spotlights installed at the place near where the plaintiff worked at Block 5.

5. At about 1.00 am on 12 April 2005 when the plaintiff was working alone at the site the spotlights on the crane went off.  She, however, continued to work as the temporary spotlights near where she was working were still on.  At about 1.30 am the temporary spotlights also went off.  As the place where she was working was in darkness the plaintiff was unable to carry on with her work.

6. It is the plaintiff’s case that she wanted to go to Block 6 where she had placed her belongings so that she could collect the same and leave the site.  She was on the podium floor and she walked on a wooden gangway leading up to a parapet when she slipped and fell off the gangway onto the podium floor.  As a result of this she sustained personal injuries.

7. This is the trial of the plaintiff’s claim for damages for personal injuries sustained by her in the fall. 

8. Although the question of liability was disputed up to trial, in the course of his closing submissions Mr Wong, for the defendants, submitted that the defendants were no longer disputing liability for the plaintiff’s injuries as a result of the fall.  The defendants accepted that they were liable in negligence.  Mr Wong also submitted that the Court should not be concerned with any apportionment of liability between the defendants.  He submitted that both defendants were liable and there would be no question of apportionment of liability between the defendants.

9. However, it was the defendants’ case that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.  Thus the real dispute on the question of liability is whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

10. The quantum of damages was also disputed.  However, certain matters were agreed at the trial as set out in the document signed by counsel as follows:

“ (1)    Sick leave was agreed at 14 months.

(2)    The award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities at $350,000.

(3)    The monthly income for alternative jobs available to the plaintiff is $5,000 (on condition if the Court finds that she is unable to return to her former occupation).

(4)    Multiplier for post-trial loss of earnings is 11.

(5)    Future Medical Expenses agreed at $2,000.

(6)    Other Special Damages agreed at $23,416.30.”

The witnesses

11. I heard evidence from the plaintiff, the 1^st defendant and Kam Ying Ho, who was a foreman of the 2^nd defendant at the material time.

12. The plaintiff was the only witness who could give evidence as to what happened to her at the material time.  Both the 1^st defendant and Kam Ying Ho were not present when she fell and they were unable to give evidence as to what happened at the time.

The duties

13. It is trite that at common law the duty of an employer to his employees is to take reasonable care for their safety.  The duty is personal to the employer and is non-delegable.

14. The duty of the employer includes the provision of a safe place of work and a safe system of work.  The employer also has a duty to provide adequate supervision over its employees.

15. Statutory duties are also imposed on employers.

16. By s. 6(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance Cap. 509, every employer must, so far as reasonably practicable, ensure the safety and health at work of all his employees.  Failures to comply with this duty include a failure to provide or maintain plant and systems of work that are, so far as reasonably practicable, safe and without risks to health (s. 6(2)(a)), and a failure to provide, inter alia, supervision as may be necessary to ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the safety and health at work of the employees (s. 6(2)(c)).

17. Duties are also imposed on the defendants as the contractors responsible for the site to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, suitable and adequate safe access to and egress from every place of work on the site is provided and properly maintained (Regulation 38A(2) of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations Cap. 591).

18. Further, where at a construction site any workman is required to work in any place on the site, the defendants as the contractors responsible for the site have a duty to ensure that the place is adequately and suitably lit to the extent necessary to secure that workman’s safety (Regulation 50 of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations Cap. 591).

19. There is also the common duty of care owed to all visitors by the defendants as occupiers of the site under s. 3 of the Occupiers Liability Ordinance Cap. 314.  The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there (s. 3(2)).

The accident

20. There is no dispute that the plaintiff slipped and fell at the site whereby she suffered personal injuries.  There was no one else at the scene of the accident at the time apart from the plaintiff.  She was the only one who could give evidence as to what happened at the time. 

21. The plaintiff gave evidence that she was instructed to do concrete leveling work alone at the site on the podium floor between Block 5 and 6.  Each block had a tower crane mounted with spotlights on the jib and slewing ring respectively.  In addition to that, there were two temporary spotlights installed near where she worked at Block 5.  She said that the lights at the tower crane went off and when this happened she continued to work as the illumination from the two temporary spotlights was sufficient for her to continue working.  After a while at about 1.30 am on 12 April 2005 the two spotlights also went off.  She therefore stopped her work as it was dark.  She wanted to go to Block 6 to the place where she had placed her belongings to collect them and to leave the site.

22. I have no hesitation in accepting this part of the plaintiff’s evidence.  I find that the lights which were mounted on the tower crane where the plaintiff was working went off whilst the plaintiff was working at the site in the early hours of the morning of 12 April 2005.  I also find that the additional temporary spotlights near where the plaintiff was working also went off at about 1.30 am and that the place where she was working was in darkness.

23. When giving evidence the plaintiff referred to the agreed sketch made by the Occupational Safety Officer of the Labour Department Chan Kwok-hung (“Chan”) which is at page 40 of the trial bundle.  The plaintiff said that she had been working on the podium floor at the left of the parapet shown in the sketch when the lights went off.  The place was in darkness and she intended to go to Block 6 to collect her belongings and leave the site.  She walked up the gangway which was a wooden plank and which was slanted up to the parapet as shown in the sketch.  She was on the podium floor on the left of the sketch and she walked up the gangway leading to the top of the parapet.  She had to use the gangway as she was not expected to walk on the floor of the podium which had been leveled and plastered for fear of damaging the plastering before the same had dried.  She said that she did not place the gangway in the position as shown in the sketch and she did not know who had put it up there.  She said that she fell backwards whilst walking up the gangway and landed in the position that she marked with an ‘X’ on the sketch (Exhibit P1) while she was giving evidence in Court.

24. The plaintiff was cross-examined about her previous declarations on 4 and 15 July 2005 to Chan where she described how and where she fell on 12 April 2005.  It is clear that the plaintiff’s evidence in Court is inconsistent with the declarations to Chan as regards how and where she fell on that day.  However, I would observe that the plaintiff does not speak English and speaks little Cantonese.  The declaration made on 4 July 2005 was in English and the one made on 15 July 2005 was in Chinese.  Although these were translated to her in Nepalese as appears from the declarations, I am not convinced that she fully understood all the questions put to her.  Some of the answers recorded were not really answers to the questions put to her. 

25. I would also observe that when interviewed it appears that the plaintiff had insisted that she had fallen down in a position at the right of the sketch even though the gangway from where she fell was quite far away as shown in the sketch.  It seems to me that there has been some confusion on the part of the plaintiff when she was interviewed by Chan and when she made her declarations.

26. Be that as it may, it is clear that the plaintiff has not given a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies.  I have taken this into account.

27. I have also taken into account that there was an element of exaggeration on the part of the plaintiff of her symptoms when she was examined by the medical experts.  As found by the medical experts, there was symptom magnification on her part.  This is a matter which does affect her credibility as a witness and I have taken this into account.

28. However, I am satisfied that the plaintiff was truthful in giving her evidence in Court as to where and how she fell.  I accept and believe this part of her evidence.  I find that she did walk up the gangway as shown in the sketch and fell backwards onto the floor of the podium in the area that she marked with an ‘X’ in Exhibit P1.  It is clear that the gangway was just a wooden plank with no guard rail.  She was expected to walk on wooden planks as these were at the site for her to use so that the concrete floor after leveling and plastering would not be damaged by walking on the floor before it was dry.

29. As I have found that the place where she was working was in darkness, I am satisfied and find that the 1^st defendant as the employer failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff as his employee.  I am also satisfied and find that he failed to provide a safe place of work for the plaintiff.

30. I am also satisfied and find that the 1^st defendant as the employer was in breach of s. 6(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance Cap. 509 by failing, so far as reasonably practicable, to ensure the safety of the plaintiff at work.  He failed to provide a safe system of work.

31. I find that there was also a breach of Regulation 38A(2) of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations Cap. 591 as the defendants as contractors responsible for the site failed to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, suitable and safe access to and egress from every place of work.  There were no guard rails on the gangway that was on the site.  As the plaintiff was expected to use the gangway and not to step on the concrete that had been poured on the floor of the podium, the defendants should have ensured that the means of access to and egress from every place of the work was suitable and safe.  The defendants failed to do that in my judgment.  I would also observe that Chan in his report dated 4 August 2005 recommended the provision of a proper gangway with suitable guard rails.

32. I also find that there was a breach of Regulation 50 of the Construction Sites (Safety) Regulations (Cap. 591) as the defendants as the contractors responsible for the site failed in their duty to ensure that the place where the plaintiff was working in the site was adequately and suitably lit to the extent necessary to secure her safety. 

33. It seems to me and I so find that there was also a breach of the common duty of care on the part of the defendants as occupiers of the site by failing to see that the plaintiff was reasonably safe in using the site for the purpose for which she was invited or permitted to be there.

34. In my judgment if the defendants had ensured that the place where the plaintiff was working was adequately and suitably lit to secure her safety the accident would not have happened.  Further, if the defendants had ensured that there was suitable and adequate safe access to and egress from the place where she was working e.g. by providing a gangway with guard rails, the accident would not have happened.

35. As I have said, it is not disputed that the defendants are liable for the accident and for the injuries to the plaintiff.  I find that the defendants are liable in negligence and for breach of statutory duties which caused the injuries to the plaintiff.

Contributory negligence

36. It is for the defendants to allege and prove contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

37. It was submitted that there should be a finding of contributory negligence to the extent of 20% on the part of the plaintiff because:

(1)       she failed to phone or notify her employer immediately after the lights went off;

(2)       she should have waited until she adjusted herself to the darkness before proceeding to leave the site; and

(3)       she should have ensured that it was safe to use the wooden gangway when she knew that she had to use it.

38. I reject any suggestion of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

39. The 1^st defendant gave evidence that the plaintiff had been told that in case of any problem the plaintiff should call him so that he could make arrangements for her.  This was not disputed by the plaintiff.

40. According to the plaintiff, she did call the employer after the fall when she was at the gate leaving the site.  I accept her evidence on this.  I fail to see how it can seriously be suggested that her failure to call the employer immediately after the lights went out was a contributory cause for the accident.

41. There is also no merit in the suggestion that she should have waited at the site to adjust herself to the dark environment before leaving the site. 

42. The cause of the accident was because the defendants were in breach of their duties to the plaintiff as I have found and not because the plaintiff failed to call her employer immediately after the lights went out or because she left the site in the dark.

43. I also reject the suggestion that the plaintiff should have ensured that the gangway was safe before using it.  It was for the defendants to ensure that the means of egress from the site such as the gangway was safe.  The duty on the employer is non-delegable and the obligation to ensure that it was safe was on the defendants.

44. It is useful to bear in mind what Denning LJ (as he then was) said in the Court of Appeal in General Cleaning Contractors Ltd v Christmas [1953] AC 180 as set out in the speech of Earl Jowitt in the House of Lords at page 187:

“ You cannot blame the man for not taking every precaution which prudence would suggest.  It is only too easy to be wise after the event.  He was doing the work in the way which the employers expected him to do it and, if they had taken proper safeguards, the accident would not have happened.”

45. I have no doubt that if the defendants had taken proper safeguards then the accident would not have happened.

46. I am satisfied that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. 

47. In my judgment the defendants are wholly liable for the accident and for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. 

The medical evidence

48. By the order made by Master B. Kwan on 8 July 2008 it was ordered by consent that the joint report of the orthopaedic experts and the pscychiatric experts shall be adduced without oral evidence.

49. The orthopaedic experts were Dr Wong Chin Hong (“Dr Wong”) for the plaintiff and Dr Lau Hoi Kuen (“Dr Lau”) for the defendants.  Their joint medical report on the plaintiff is dated 8 October 2006.

50. The psychiatric experts were Dr K. Singer (“Dr Singer”) for the plaintiff and Dr Law Wun-tong (“Dr Law”) for the defendants.  Their joint medical report on the plaintiff is dated 7 January 2008.

51. In their joint medical report, Dr Wong and Dr Lau set out the complaints of the plaintiff when she went to the Accident and Emergency Department of the Yan Chai Hospital at about 10 am on 12 April 2005.  The plaintiff complained of neck, back and right leg pain after the accident.

52. According to the hospital records, the plaintiff complained of landing on her buttock.  There was no loss of consciousness and no head injury.  The plaintiff gave evidence that she was unconscious after the fall but this is not supported by the medical evidence.  I do not believe this part of her evidence.

53. As set out in their joint report, the plaintiff’s problems at the time of the joint examination were as follows:

“1.   Pain in the lower back, radiating down the lower third of her right leg.  Need to take oral analgesics 3 times daily.

2.      The back pain comes on intermittently.  The pain is worse with movement, walking and prolonged sitting.

3.      Reduced sitting tolerance - increased back pain after sitting for more than  15 to 20 minutes.

4.      Reduced walking tolerance - increased back pain after walking for more  than 15 to 20 minutes.   

5.      Cannot walk without a stick.

6.      Needs to wear a lumbar corset all the time.

7.      Disturbance of sleep - wakes up every night due to back pain.

8.      Increased back pain on coughing and sneezing.  Also had increased back pain when strains during toileting.

9.      Ms Gurung Tiki Maya does not complain of any neck pain.”

54. At the examination by the joint orthopaedic experts the plaintiff walked with a slow pace using a stick.  She was unable to stand upright and tended to stoop forward.  She asked to lie down after sitting in a chair for 25 minutes.  She said that she could not lie on her back and preferred to lie on her left side.

55. Her neck was examined and it was non tender.

56. As for her back, she was wearing a corset and complained of severe back pain on movement of the back.  It was agreed by the experts that there was no muscle spasm although the experts differed on whether there was paraspinal muscles guarding.  Dr Wong was of the view that this was present whereas Dr Lau was of the view that this was absent.  I prefer the view of Dr Wong on this.

57. There were various tests conducted on the plaintiff and there were positive signs suggesting that there was symptom magnification on the part of the plaintiff.

58. Examination of the right leg showed decreased sensation to touch over the whole right leg lower limb from hip down to the toes when compared with left lower limb where there was normal sensation.

59. Although according to the doctors the plaintiff had said that she fell from a height of about 2 meters, in evidence she said that she did not know how high the parapet was.  According to the agreed sketch the height of the top of the parapet to the floor of the podium was 0.9 m.  She fell from the slanting gangway at a point before reaching the top of the parapet.  She could not possibly have fallen from a height of 2 meters and I find that she fell from a height of less than 0.9 m.

60. As the plaintiff did not have any significant injuries to her back and right leg before the accident, it seems clear that as Dr Wong opined and as I find, the back pain and right leg pain were caused by the accident.

61. As no fracture was revealed by X-rays of her spine, pelvis and right leg, the diagnosis was that she could have suffered contusion injury to her low back and right leg with soft tissue injury to her low back as a result of the accident.  I so find.

62. As noted by the experts her neck pain had resolved after treatment.

63. Although by the time of the joint examination it was more than a year after the accident, she still complained of significant back and right leg pain.  The experts noted that there were many positive signs of symptom magnification on the part of the plaintiff.  Both doctors were of the opinion that the plaintiff’s condition had reached maximum medical improvement.

64. There is no doubt that the plaintiff has been exaggerating her symptoms of pain and discomfort.  Even when she was in Court during the trial she grimaced with pain when sitting in the public gallery and required assistance when stooping in a slanting position while seated.  She required assistance to walk to the witness box and had to stoop on her left side while seated.  She asked for adjournments to rest and to take medication.  I formed the view that much of this was an exaggeration of her pain and discomfort.

65. As regards her right leg, Dr Wong also expressed the opinion that the pain was moderate in severity.

66. Dr Wong was of the opinion that the plaintiff was unlikely to be able to return to her previous job at the site.  Dr Lau, however, was of the view that she has recovered well from the injury to her low back and was able to return to her pre-injury job with mild decrease in efficiency at work.  I prefer the opinion of Dr Wong to that of Dr Lau.  The plaintiff made it clear in evidence that as a concrete leveler she also had to do plastering work.  She had to bend down and crouch to the ground to level concrete and to use an iron plank to forcefully press the concrete whilst bending down.  She also had to carry buckets of water which she used in her work.  It is unclear whether Dr Lau appreciated the full extent of the plaintiff’s duties in her pre-accident job.

67. Although there has been an exaggeration of her pain and symptoms, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that she still has some pain in her low back.  I agree with Dr Wong and find that it is unlikely that she will be able to return to her previous job in a construction site.

68. Dr Wong said that she should be able to do jobs of a lighter nature which do not require heavy exertion.  Such jobs would include clerical duties, petty cleaner, office work, cashier and car park attendant.

69. It has been agreed that she should be able to earn a monthly salary of $5,000 from alternative employment.

70. According to the joint medical report of the psychiatrists, Dr Singer was of the view that the plaintiff was suffering from adjustment disorder with depressed mood in direct consequence of the accident.  He was of the view that it was moderate in degree.  He was also of the view that there was an element of exaggeration on the part of the plaintiff.  Dr Law agreed with Dr Singer that the plaintiff was suffering from adjustment disorder with depressed mood after the accident but he was of the view that the severity of the adjustment disorder was mild rather than moderate.

71. Both psychiatrists recommended a further course of psychiatric treatment but the doctors differed on the length of treatment.  Dr Singer said that 20 sessions would be sufficient whereas Dr Law said that 10 sessions would suffice.

72. Future medical expenses have been agreed at $2,000.

73. As to what work the plaintiff can do, Dr Singer was of the view that she could now do part-time menial jobs, if her physical condition would allow, with distress and inefficiency and after the recommended treatment she could do the same including her pre-accident work if her physical condition would allow with mild distress and inefficiency.

74. Dr Law was of the view that her future work capacity should only be limited by her physical disability.  The adjustment disorder would not significantly impair her work capacity.

75. I prefer the view of Dr Law to that of Dr Singer and find that the adjustment disorder with depressed mood was mild and not moderate in severity.

76. As I have said, the plaintiff is exaggerating her symptoms and her pain.  Dr Wong has said that she can physically do work of a lighter nature which did not involve heavy exertion.  This would make her unsuitable to go back to her previous job and in the light of Dr Law’s opinion, which I accept and prefer to Dr Singer’s opinion, I see no reason why the plaintiff cannot perform a job of a lighter nature not requiring heavy exertion as Dr Wong said.  I so find.

Quantum of damages

77. The plaintiff came to Hong Kong from Nepal in 1996.  She is now 41 years old and was 37 years old at the time of the accident.  She has only attained primary level education.

78. The plaintiff is married with 4 sons.  Since 1998 until the accident she has only worked for the defendant as a construction site worker.

Pain suffering and loss of amenities (“PSLA”)

79. This has been agreed at $350,000.  I award this sum for PSLA.

Pre-trial loss of earnings

80. The plaintiff’s case is that she earned an average of $9,200 per month whilst employed by the 1^st defendant at the time of the accident.  However, she is unable to produce any documentary evidence in support thereof.  She gave evidence that sometimes she earned a monthly sum of $12,000, $10,000, $9,000 and $7,000 as she had no fixed salary.

81. It is accepted that the 1^st defendant as her employer submitted a return to the Inland Revenue Department for the year from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 which showed that the plaintiff was paid $85,500 for that year.  This shows that her monthly average earnings at the time of the accident was $7,125.

82. The evidence of the 1^st defendant on the earnings of the plaintiff at the time of the accident is supported by the employer’s return to the Inland Revenue Department.  In my view, his evidence on this is reliable whereas the plaintiff’s evidence is unreliable.  I accept the 1^st defendant’s evidence on this and reject the plaintiff’s evidence.  I find that the plaintiff was earning an average of $7,125 per month at the time of the accident.

83. Sick leave has been agreed at 14 months.  There were 45 months from accident to trial.  Full loss of earnings must be awarded to the plaintiff for the whole of the sick leave period of 14 months. 

84. In addition to that, it seems to me that it is reasonable to allow the plaintiff a further period after the expiration of the sick leave to look for alternative employment.  I have found that she is unable to return to her former job in a construction site.  Although, as Dr Wong said, she could work in a job of lighter nature not requiring heavy exertion like clerical duties, petty cleaner, office work, cashier and car park attendant, her choice of alternative jobs is limited in view of her language skills.  She does not speak English and speaks only limited Cantonese.  In my view, it would be reasonable to allow a further period of 3 months from the expiration of the sick leave period for full loss of earnings.  Thereafter, in my view, it would be reasonable to award her partial loss of earnings on the basis that she would have earned $5,000 per month in an alternative job as agreed.

85. In my judgment the plaintiff should be awarded full loss of earnings for a total of 17 months and partial loss of earnings for the remaining 28 months before trial.

86. The award for pre-trial loss of earnings plus loss of MPF benefits is as follows:

87. I award $189,656.25 for pre-trial loss of earnings plus MPF benefits.

Future loss of earnings

88. A multiplier of 11 has been agreed.

89. The plaintiff accepts in her pleaded case in the revised statement of damages that when calculating the claim for future loss of earnings the sum of $5,000 being the monthly sum of alternative employment should be deducted.

90. In my judgment the award for future loss of earnings plus MPF benefits should be the sum of $294,525 ($7,125 - $5,000 x 12 x 11 x 1.05).  I award this sum for loss of future earnings plus MPF benefits.    

Loss of earning capacity

91. The plaintiff claims the sum of $100,000 for loss of earning capacity.

92. The defendants dispute that the plaintiff is entitled to an award under this head as there is no evidence to suggest that the plaintiff will suffer a serious risk for the alternative jobs suggested by Dr. Wong.

93. The reality of the situation is that the plaintiff has not yet started any alternative employment.  As I have found, she should have been able to work in a job with lighter duties not requiring heavy exertion 17 months after the accident.  There is, in my view, a real risk that at some future date during the rest of her working life she will lose her employment and she will then suffer financial loss because of her disadvantage in the labour market.

94. I would award her half a month of loss of earnings a year for the agreed multiplier of 11 making an award of $27,500 ($5,000 ¸ 2 x 11) for loss of earning capacity.

Future medical expenses

95. These have been agreed at $2,000.

Other special damages

96. These have been agreed at $23,416.30.

Conclusion

97. The plaintiff is entitled to the following awards:

98. From the total sum of $887,097.55 must be deducted the sum of $184,697.11 being the amount of employees’ compensation received by the plaintiff.  I therefore give judgment to the plaintiff against the defendants for damages in the sum of $702,400.44.

99. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on damages.  It is agreed:

(1)  that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at 2% p.a. on the award for PSLA from date of writ until judgment;

(2)  that the plaintiff is entitled to interest at half judgment rate on other special damages and pre-trial loss of earnings plus MPF benefits from date of accident until judgment;

(3)  that credit has to be given for the interest accrued from payment to trial for the sum received by the plaintiff for employees’ compensation. 

I so order.

100. As agreed by counsel, the detailed calculations in respect of interest are to be left to the solicitors for the parties. 

101. I also make an order nisi that the defendants should pay the plaintiff costs of the action such costs to be taxed in the District Court scale.  The plaintiff’s own costs are to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.