TECHPEARL PRINTING LIMITED & OTHERS v. CHEUNG TING CHIU (also known as CHEUNG YEE)

1994, No.A11865

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

____________

______________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

______________________

1. In these proceedings the Plaintiffs claim damages against the Defendant for trespass, private nuisance, negligence, interference with trade and business, and intimidation. The claim arises out of visits the Defendant made to the premises of the Plaintiffs on a number of occasions between 15th and 25th November 1995 causing a disturbance and threatening the staff.

2. The Defendant claimed that the 1st Plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of $343,511.00 and blamed the directors for not repaying the alleged debt. On 15th November 1994 he appeared at the Plaintiff's premises with four other men, shouted at the staff for over an hour, threatened one of the employees and refused to leave until the police were called. On 17th November he made threatening phone calls, and on 18th November he returned to the premises shouting, threatened the same employee, with other men barricaded an office of one of the directors, stuck abusive posters on the walls and doors, and behaved abusively until the police were called. On 19th November, after a further telephone call to the Plaintiff's premises when he again threatened the same employee, he again appeared at the premises and continued his threats. On 21st, 22nd and 25th November the Defendant again appeared at the premises and glued abusive posters to the walls and floors which also contained defamatory and obscene material. Throughout the whole period on his visits to the premises the Defendant threatened the staff of the Plaintiffs and warned them not to contact the police. On 25th November the Plaintiffs finally obtained an injunction against the Defendant restraining him from further similar behaviour.

3. As a result of these incidents and the behaviour of the Defendant the Plaintiffs were unable to operate for some days, and had to hire security guards for six days. Their director, Mr Alan Jordan, who gave evidence before me, was not able to attend work for eight days, as some of the threats of the Defendant were directed at him personally and he wished to avoid any violence, and the Plaintiffs accordingly lost his services for that period.

4. The 1st Plaintiff pays the 2nd Plaintiff 3.75% of their gross billings for the services of Mr Jordan as their manager. The last full years' billings available amounted to $13,658,000.00, making the payment due to the 2nd Plaintiff $512,175.00, or $1,641.60 for each of the 312 days Mr Jordan normally works a year. The loss to the 1st Plaintiff in respect of Mr Jordan's enforced absence for eight days is accordingly $13,132.80.

5. It was also necessary to lay off the bookkeeper for one day. He has a salary of $7,000.00 a month, plus one month's bonus a year, giving an average of $7,583.00 a month. Dividing this by his working days of 24, the loss can be calculated at $316.00.

6. In addition to the above, Mr Jordan's evidence was that the 1st Plaintiff paid the security guards a total of $4,500.00. I also accept this evidence and award this sum.

7. Mr Jordan put the cost of his lost services to the 2nd Plaintiff at $26,000.00. He justified that by calculating his monthly cost to the 2nd Plaintiff at $78,000.00, being $4,000.00 salary, $26,000.00 quarters, $8,000.00 transport and food, and an average of $40,000.00 share of profits. A daily figure of $3,250.00 is arrived at by dividing this by 24, the average number of working days a month. I accept his evidence as to the cost to the 2nd Plaintiff of the loss of his services and agree with his figure of $26,000.00.

8. Two of the staff of the 2nd Plaintiff had to be laid off for three days, the production manager and a secretary. The salary of the secretary is $5,000.00 a month, and the total remuneration of the production manager by way of salary and bonuses is $22,600.00 a month. Again taking an average working month of 24 days, this comes to a daily figure for the two of $1,150.00. The loss suffered by the 2nd Plaintiff in respect of their absence is accordingly $3,450.00.

9. In addition to these damages the Plaintiffs also seek general damages for the disturbance, intimidation, inconvenience and damage to the reputation of the Plaintiffs.

10. It is clear that the behaviour of the Defendant caused considerable disruption to the work of the Plaintiffs, the staff were threatened and abused, and embarrassment was caused to them when clients visited the premises when the Defendant was causing a disturbance. This in turn must have damaged the reputation of the Plaintiffs. There is little to provide any guidance when assessing damages at large in a situation such as this, which is more of the nature of damages for libel than those for specific injuries. However, doing the best I can, I consider that the Plaintiff would be adequately compensated by an award of $50,000.00.

Summary

Special Damages

1st Plaintiff:-	Loss of services of staff and cost of
	security guards.......................... $17,948.80
2nd Plaintiff:-	Loss of services of staff ................$29,450.00

General Damages ................................................$50,000.00

Total:	................................ $97,398.80

11. The Defendant will also pay the Plaintiff's costs to be taxed on the High Court scale.