DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v. YAU CHUANG YAU

DCCJ 4548/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4548 OF 2002

__________________

___________________

_____________________________________

A S S E S S M E N T  O F  D A M A G E S

_____________________________________

1.  The plaintiff represents the Government of the HKSAR under section 13 of the Crown Proceedings Ordinance, Cap.300, Laws of Hong Kong and section 18 of the Hong Kong Reunification Ordinance, Cap.2601 of the Laws of Hong Kong.

2.  In these proceedings the plaintiff claims against the defendant for outstanding rental of a departmental quarter for the Hong Kong Police Force at Flat A, 305 Kwai Chung Police Married Quarters at 997, Kwai Chung Road, New Territories (hereinafter referred to as “the premises”).

3.  The premises have been used and occupied by the defendant and his family since 7 November 1991 at an occupation fee of $671.25, a rate laid down by the Civil Service Regulations.

4.  The defendant resigned from the police force on 19 March 1999 and was required to vacate the premises on or before 31 December 1999.  The defendant failed to vacate the premises until 29 November 2001, in spite of repeated demands.  He failed to pay any occupation fee in the monthly sum of $671.25 since 19 July 1999 up to 31 December 1999, at a total sum of $3,637.75.  The defendant failed to pay open-market rental, which would be payable after 31 December 1999, (his official vacation date) up to the date of his actual vacating the premises on 29 November 2001.

5.  Interlocutory judgment was entered against the defendant when the defendant failed to give notice of intention to defend.  On 28 June 2005 judgment was entered against the defendant, giving judgment for $3,637.75 outstanding rental and interest on the said sum, with a direction for damages to be assessed.

6.  At today’s hearing of assessment of damages, Miss Lai Wai-ying, an executive officer at the Hong Kong Police Force at the relevant period of time, gave evidence.  She claimed that she had been handling this case and her evidence supported the plaintiff’s claim in that in the period of the defendant’s wrongful occupation after 31 December 1999, up to 29 November 2001, he failed to pay the market rental of $3,500 per month during this period of wrongful occupation.

7.  The plaintiff called a second witness, Mr Kwok Chi-lam.  Mr Kwok is a valuation surveyor of the government’s Rating and Valuation Department.  He submitted his valuation report on the market rental of the premises on 1 January 2000 and confirmed the open-market rental was $3,500 per month.  I accept Mr Kwok’s valuation as the proper basis of the market rental of the department quarters occupied by the defendant between 1 January 2000 up to 28 November 2001 to be $3,500 per month.

8.  The damages assessed are therefore, between 1 January 2000 and 31 October 2001, at $3,500 per month, a total of $77,000.  Between 1 November 2001 and 28 November 2001, at the same rate of $3,500, for the 28 days, is $3,266.77 the total come to $80,266.67.  I assess the damages at $80,266.67.  Interest to be calculated from the date of writ to the date of judgment at half judgment rate, thereafter at judgment rate until full payment.  Costs to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.