SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG WAI LOK RAYMOND

DCCJ 2647/2014

[2024] HKDC 1683

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 2647 OF 2014

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

BETWEEN

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

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

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

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

Introduction

1.  This is the hearing for assessment of damages of the Plaintiff’s claim for the outstanding mesne profits and furniture allowance in respect of the Defendant's occupation of his assigned departmental quarters at a flat in Block 6 of Shun Lee Disciplined Services Quarters (“the Premises”).

2.  The Plaintiff confirms its claim is only limited to (i) the outstanding mesne profits of HK$557,340.41 and (ii) furniture allowance of HK$9,616.12 for the Premises from the period 2 August 2001 to 6 August 2009, totalling HK$566,956.53[1]. The Plaintiff does not pursue any pre-judgment interest on mesne profits and/or damages in respect of the Premises and another flat previously occupied by the Defendant.

3.  The Plaintiff commenced these proceedings on 9 July 2014. Interlocutory Judgment was entered against the Defendant on 4 December 2014.

4.  The Defendant was absent at the hearing on 4 October 2024. Having read the affirmations of service filed in late September 2024, I was satisfied that notice of assessment hearing had been duly given to the Defendant prior to the hearing. It was the Defendant’s election not to attend the assessment hearing. I proceeded with the assessment of damages in the absence of him.

The Plaintiff’s case

5.  The Defendant was employed as a police officer and was allocated departmental quarters at the Premises (and another flat at an earlier stage which is not relevant to the present assessment). The Defendant occupied the Premises from 2 August 2001, until he eventually vacated from it on 6 August 2009.

6.  At all the material times, the Defendant was subjected to the terms of, inter alia, the Police General Orders (“PGO”), the Civil Service Regulations (“CSR”), and the Force Procedures Manual (“FPM”).

7.  Under the relevant terms, in gist, the Defendant would lose eligibility to occupy the Premises upon divorce without legal custody of at least one dependent child. Also, he was required to make a report within the time stipulated regarding the change of marital status and family situation affecting his eligibility.

8.  The Defendant divorced on 7 April 1999. He was ineligible to occupy government quarters (including the Premises). However, he still applied for junior police officers married quarters on 30 October 2000. In addition, he also failed to report his divorce to the Commissioner within the relevant time stipulated. Given the breach, he was found guilty of one count of “Conduct to Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline” on 22 July 2011.

9.  Pursuant to PGO 62-27, the Defendant failed to comply with the aforesaid terms, rules, and regulations and is therefore subject to disqualification from all forms of civil service housing and/or housing related benefits, as well as payment to the Government of an appropriate sum being rent at market value plus interest.

10.  The Defendant also signed the Undertaking dated 9 February 2001 for the purpose of being allocated the Premises. Put simply, the effect (as provided for in paragraph 2(d)) is that: if he breaches PGO, CSR, and/or FPM, he has to vacate the Premises and pay market rent for unauthorized occupation. CSR also provides that in the event of non-compliance, the Defendant will be required to pay the Government an appropriate sum to be determined by the Secretary for the Civil Service, for example damages equivalent to market rent of quarters as recommended by the Government Property Administrator (“GPA”).

11.  Apart from the above, the Defendant also received a furniture allowance in accordance with CSR 864(2) at the rate of HK$100 per month. Such allowance is a type of civil service-related housing benefit being conditional upon the Defendant’s occupation of government quarters. Hence, his failure to report the change in circumstances concerning his eligibility made him liable to repay the allowance.

12.  In light of the above, the Plaintiff seeks a sum of HK$557,340.41 being the outstanding mesne profits and HK$9,616.12 being the furniture allowance against the Defendant.

The Evidence

13.  In the present hearing, the Plaintiff called 1 witness Ms Hung Wing Sze, a Senior Inspector of Police, Quartering Investigation Team under the Police Quartering Division. The Plaintiff also adduced a valuation report prepared by Ms Leung Ka Ki dated 18 March 2024. Their testimony was not subject to any challenge from the Defendant who had adduced no documentary evidence and witness evidence for the purpose of assessment of damages and was absent during the hearing. I accept Ms Hung’s evidence and Ms Leung’s findings in the said report.

Mesne profits

14.  In Ms Hung’s witness statement, it is specifically pointed out the Defendant had made part-payment by deduction of his salary. HK$55,057.82 of the part-payment was being applied to settle the outstanding mesne profits of the Premises.

15.  Ms Hung then went on to consider the figures contained in (i) the Memo from GPA[2] and (ii) Ms Leung’s valuation report[3]. They set out the respective monthly market rents of the Premises at different times from August 2001 to August 2009.

16.  Following from the above, Ms Hung prepared a table[4] with detailed breakdowns of the CSR rent actually paid by the Defendant, the market rent, the underpaid rental charges, and other information at the material times. Having deducted the part-payment as well as the actual rent paid by the Defendant, the Plaintiff arrives at the sum HK$557,340.41 being the mesne profits to which the Plaintiff is entitled to recover.

17.  I find the methodology and calculations adopted by Ms Hung reasonable and allow HK$557,340.41 recoverable from the Defendant.

Furniture allowance

18.  Likewise, Ms Hung compiled another table[5] with detailed breakdowns of the furniture allowance for which the Defendant is liable to repay from 2 August 2001 to 6 August 2009 for reasons stated in paragraph 11 above. The total sum is HK$9,616.12. The Plaintiff confirms it does not pursue the interest on the furniture allowance.

19.  Having looked into the breakdowns, I accept the sum of HK$9,616.12 sought by the Plaintiff reasonable and allow the same to be recoverable from the Defendant.

Conclusion

20.  The Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendant the following:

(1)	Mesne profits:	HK$557,340.41
(2)	Furniture allowance:	HK$9,616.12
		______________
	TOTAL:	HK$566,956.53

21.  I order that the Defendant do pay the sum of HK$566,956.53 to the Plaintiff. As to interest, the Plaintiff only asks for interest from the date of judgment until full payment by the Defendant at judgment rate. I so order.

22.  Costs should follow the event in the present case. I order the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs, to be taxed if not agreed.