CHUI YIN CHEONG v. NG TZE CHUEN AND ANOTHER

DCCJ5870/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5870 OF 2004

______________________

______________________

_________________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

_________________________________

1.  This is an assessment of damages in relation to the plaintiff arising out of an accident on 8 March 2003. 

2.  The defendant has never taken part in this action.  According to the second affirmation of Lam Chi-chung, both defendants have been served with a notice of today’s hearing.  Notice of today’s hearing has also been sent by court to both defendants.  In the circumstances, I am satisfied that both defendants have been informed of today’s assessment and I  proceed with the assessment in the absence of the defendants.

3.  The plaintiff is the registered owner of a taxi bearing registration number KB 5737, hereinafter called “the plaintiff’s taxi”.  On 8 March 2003 a medium goods vehicle bearing registration number KD 4371, hereinafter called “the defendant’s vehicle”, collided with a vehicle bearing registration number JG 3481 on Texaco Road pushing the said JG 3481 forward to hit another vehicle bearing registration number DP 6778.  The said DP 6778 in turn was pushed forward to hit the rear of the plaintiff’s taxi.  As a result of the impact, the plaintiff’s taxi was pushed forward to collide with another vehicle ahead.

4.  At the time of the accident, the defendant’s vehicle was owned by the 1st defendant and driven by the 2nd defendant.  Interlocutory judgment in this action was entered on 13 December 2005 against both defendants for damages to be assessed and costs.

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

6.  The first item claimed by the plaintiff is $53,485.40 being the cost of repair of the plaintiff’s taxi.  The plaintiff testified as to the damage to and subsequent repair of the plaintiff’s taxi.  The plaintiff also called Mr Lee Wing-ho, Sammy, of Topliss & Harding Hong Kong Limited to testify as an expert on the repair of the plaintiff’s taxi and quantum.  I accept Mr Lee’s expertise.  Mr Lee adopted the Motor Survey Report dated 13 March 2003 prepared by him, including 17 photographs, to confirm the damage to and subsequent repair of the plaintiff’s taxi, as well as quantum.  The plaintiff further adduced a receipt dated 20 April 2004 and a receipt dated 30 March 2003, both issued by United Taxi Service Company to confirm that a total of $53,485.40 has been paid for the repair of the plaintiff’s taxi.  I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage in the sum of $53,485.40 being the cost of repair of the plaintiff’s taxi and that the amount is reasonable.

7.  The second item claimed by the plaintiff is $670 being the survey fee.  The plaintiff testified that his insurer had paid the survey fee and adduced the Motor Survey Report and a receipt dated 13 March 2003 in evidence.  I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage in the sum of $670 being the survey fee and the amount is reasonable. 

8.  The third item claimed by the plaintiff is $5,100 being loss of use of the plaintiff’s taxi from 8 to 15 March 2003.  The plaintiff testified on the basis of this claim and adduced a car hiring agreement dated 10 June 2001 and a document dated 15 March 2003 issued by United Taxi Service Company in evidence.  These documentary evidence confirm the plaintiff’s evidence on the period in which the plaintiff has lost the use of the plaintiff’s taxi as well as loss of hiring charge.  I am satisfied that the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage in the sum of $5,100 being loss of use of the plaintiff’s taxi at $680 per day for seven and a half days from 8 March 2003 to 15 March 2003 and that the amount is reasonable.

9.  By reason of the above, the total amount of damages assessed for the plaintiff comes to $59,255.40.  It is therefore adjudged that the 1st and 2nd defendants to pay the plaintiff the sum of $59,255.40 with interest thereon at judgment rate from the date of writ until payment together with costs of the assessment, except the costs of 4 July 2005, to be taxed if not agreed.