LIU CHUN KOW JOE v. LEE SAU WING

HCPI 399/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO. 399 OF 2001

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. I have two applications before me arising out of my judgment dated 15 February 2007.  There are two topics forming the subject of the discussion today : one is in relation to corrections of certain items in my judgment, and the other is on the matter of interest.  

2. I would first deal with the matter of corrections.

3. I accept that it is only in exceptional cases, with special circumstances, that the court should indulge in correcting a judgment given, or any particular aspect of a judgment.  There are now a number of items that the parties suggest that should be corrected. 

4. As to Item 2, there is no dispute that a mathematical mistake had occurred and that therefore the proper figure for Item 2 should be $135,711.

5. As to Item 5, it is common ground that I made a mistake in not appreciating that the letter I had relied on at paragraph 71 of my judgment (in dismissing Item 5 Claim) was overtaken by another letter which totally changed the picture.  Having looked at the matter again and in the light of my holding in favour of the plaintiff on Items 3 and 4, I am of the view that the plaintiff should be allowed in full the amount claimed of $53,392.  So there is a correction under Item 5, in that, instead of zero there should be allowed a sum of $53,392.

6. In relation to Item 3, I do not take the view that this is a matter that should be the subject of any correction or a revisiting of what I had decided.  If there is any unhappiness with that, that should be the subject of an appeal.

7. I now turn to interest.

8. I heard arguments by both counsel.  I read their skeletons.  I think there may be scope in suggesting that the plaintiff be deprived of interest for a period of some 22 months where, it is said, that he did not pursue his proceedings vigorously and properly as he should, because a lot of time was wasted by the engagement, both in terms of discovery as well as correspondence with the hospital over the accuracy of the hospital records.  I am taking a broad and liberal view of the matter.  In my opinion, justice would be served by an interest award of, instead of paragraph 8 of the skeleton of Mr Sakhrani of $468,444.93 x 5.467% x 3,154/365 days, I would substitute not the number of days but the interest rate to 5.375%.  So there is no reduction of period but there is a difference of interest percentage calculation.  That is my decision on the interest that should be awarded.