WOO CHUN YU ADOLF v. LAU WING WONG WEBER AND ANOTHER

DCCJ4347/2004

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4347 OF 2004

________________________________

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

________________________________

1.  This is an assessment of damages in relation to the plaintiff, arising out of a traffic accident on 8 September 2003. 

2.  The accident involved a private vehicle bearing registration number AW883 and a light goods vehicle bearing registration number FN9574.  The plaintiff is the registered owner of AW883.  At the time of the accident, the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant were the registered owner and the driver respectively of FN9574.

3.  The accident happened this way.  At about 10.45 am on 8 September 2003, AW883 was going downhill along the southbound Stanley Village Road, and was immediately followed by FN9574.  Upon reaching the junction with Carmel Road, AW883 slowed down and stopped with a view to make a right turn into Carmel Road.  FN9574, however, failed to stop in time.  The front part of FN9574 collided with the rear part of AW883 and both vehicles were damaged.  The 2nd defendant was later convicted of careless driving as a result of this accident.

4.  The writ in this action was issued on 18 August 2004.  No notice of intention to defend was filed by either defendant in this action.  By an interlocutory judgment dated 5 October 2004, the 2nd defendant has been adjudged to pay the plaintiff damages to be assessed and costs.  By another interlocutory judgment dated 14 October 2004, the 1st defendant has also been adjudged to pay the plaintiff damages to be assessed and costs.  By an order dated 29 June 2005, the assessment has been adjourned and this is the assessment hearing.

5.  Miss Cheung, the solicitor representing the plaintiff, has informed me that the plaintiff’s solicitors have notified both defendants of today’s hearing by letters dated 31 August 2005 sent to them respectively.  I am satisfied that both defendants have been served with notice of today’s hearing.

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

7.  The first item is the repair cost of AW883 in the sum of $66,757.  The plaintiff gave evidence at the assessment.  He said that his insurer had arranged the repair of AW883 at the cost of $66,757.  He paid the sums of $35,000 and $4,112.60, being policy excess and depreciation, and the balance of $27,644.40 was settled by his insurer.  All these payments are supported by invoices and receipts produced.

8.  The plaintiff also called Mr Lee Wing-ho, Sammy of Toplis & Harding (Hong Kong) Limited to testify as an expert.  Mr Lee graduated as a motor engineer from Kwun Tong Technical Institute in 1984.  Since then, he has acquired associate membership of the Institute of Motor Industry in the United Kingdom.  He has been working in the motor repair and surveying field for about 20 years.  I accept Mr Lee as an expert in motor vehicle repair and survey.  A motor survey report has also been adduced as evidence on the repair of AW883 and on the question of quantum. 

9.  Notwithstanding the absence of the defendants at this assessment, Miss Cheung has very fairly drawn my attention to the fact that the repair cost of $66,757 includes a sum of $4,112.60 which is considered by Mr Lee as depreciation or betterment.  Miss Cheung relies on Wong Ping Mui v Mak Hung On, DCCJ 2874/2001 and Harbour Front Investments Limited v Lock Kwok Leung, HCSA 68/2002 and submits that the full amount inclusive of betterment should be awarded to the plaintiff.

10.  There is no challenge from the defendants of the plaintiff’s evidence. 

11.  Having considered all the evidence, I am satisfied that the repair cost for AW883 arising out of this accident in the sum of $66,757 is reasonable.  I also respectfully adopt the rationale of His Honour Judge Cheung (as he then was) in Wong Ping Mui in awarding betterment in the sum of $4,112.60 to the plaintiff.

12.  The other items claimed by the plaintiff are $790 of survey fee and $45 of search fee.  Both items are evidenced by receipts produced.  I am satisfied that the plaintiff has incurred these sums and that the amount is reasonable.

13.  The plaintiff further claims interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of writ until judgment. 

14.  The total amount of damages assessed for the plaintiff therefore comes to $67,592.  I adjudge that the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant do pay the plaintiff the sum of $67,592 with interest thereon at 8 per cent per annum from the date of writ until today and thereafter at judgment rate until payment.

15.  On the question of costs, there is no reason why costs should not follow the event.  So I order that the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant do pay the plaintiff’s costs of this assessment, to be taxed if not agreed.