ELSE PETER GEORGE v. LAU KA LAI AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- ELSE PETER GEORGE v. LAU KA LAI AND ANOTHER
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Court
- District Court
- Decision
- 14 March 2007
- Posture
- Civil Action (motor Vehicle Collision) / Assessment of Damages (interlocutory Judgments Entered)
- Case number
- DCCJ1411/2005
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- District Court
- Decision
- 14 March 2007
- Posture
- Civil Action (motor Vehicle Collision) / Assessment of Damages (interlocutory Judgments Entered)
- Case number
- DCCJ1411/2005
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found on the evidence that the 2nd Defendant's negligent driving solely caused the collision; the 1st Defendant, as registered owner, is vicariously liable for the 2nd Defendant's tort; the Plaintiff is entitled to damages of $259,296.43 (repair costs $250,000 + loss of no claim bonus $8,596.43 + survey fee $700), interest from 7 October 2003 at half‑judgment rate until assessment and at judgment rate thereafter, and costs on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed.
Court disposition
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant jointly for assessed damages and costs.
Orders
- 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant do jointly pay the Plaintiff the sum of $259,296.43 with interest thereon at half Judgment rate from 7 October 2003 until the date of handing down of this assessment and thereafter at Judgment rate until satisfaction.
- There be an Order Nisi that the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant do jointly pay the Plaintiff his costs of this action on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed; unless an application is made to vary this Order Nisi it shall become absolute in 14 days.
02
Material facts
Parties
ELSE PETER GEORGE
Plaintiff Counsel: Mr. Chiu Wai Shing, Messrs. Simon C.W. Yung & Co.LAU KA LAI
1st Defendant Counsel: UnrepresentedTANG KIN MING
2nd Defendant Counsel: UnrepresentedAmounts and remedies
- Repair Costs: HKD 250,000
- Loss of No Claim Bonus: HKD 8,596.43
- Motor Survey Fee: HKD 700
- Total Assessed Damages: HKD 259,296.43
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Action (motor Vehicle Collision) / Assessment of Damages (interlocutory Judgments Entered)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the 2nd Defendant was negligent in causing the collision
- 02
Whether the 1st Defendant is vicariously liable for the tort of the 2nd Defendant
- 03
Quantum of damages recoverable by the Plaintiff (repair costs, loss of no‑claim bonus, survey fee)
- 04
Appropriate interest rate and costs order
- 05
Admissibility of documentary evidence and expert testimony despite non‑compliance with disclosure/hearsay rules
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Plaintiff alleged that the 2nd Defendant drove negligently causing vehicle KW8452 to ram JF3342 which in turn pushed into the Plaintiff's stationary vehicle; sought repair costs of $250,000, loss of no claim bonus $8,596.43, motor survey fee $700, interest from 7 October 2003 and costs; called an expert surveyor (leave under Order 38 Rule 36) and testified personally.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rambarran v. Gurrucharran (1970) 1 All E.R. 749
An owner is liable for torts committed by a driver under vicarious/agency principles; owner and driver can be jointly liable to the injured party.
- 02
Order 38 Rule 36, Rules of District Court (Hong Kong)
Court may permit expert testimony by leave where appropriate (even if not previously disclosed) under District Court procedural rules.
- 03
Principles of civil damages assessment and District Court practice and procedure
Damages for motor vehicle collisions can include reasonable repair costs, loss of no‑claim bonus, and survey fees; interest is awarded at prescribed judgment rates and costs on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed.
- 04
Rules of Court / equitable procedural discretion
Admission of documents without prior hearsay notice may be permitted where it is not unfair to the opposing party.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found on the evidence that the 2nd Defendant's negligent driving solely caused the collision; the 1st Defendant, as registered owner, is vicariously liable for the 2nd Defendant's tort; the Plaintiff is entitled to damages of $259,296.43 (repair costs $250,000 + loss of no claim bonus $8,596.43 + survey fee $700), interest from 7 October 2003 at half‑judgment rate until assessment and at judgment rate thereafter, and costs on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed.
Obiter and limits
- Court exercised discretion to admit documentary evidence and expert report despite lack of prior disclosure/hearsay notice as it was not unfair in the circumstances
- Leave granted for expert testimony under Order 38 Rule 36 was appropriate
Court disposition
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant jointly for assessed damages and costs.
- 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant do jointly pay the Plaintiff the sum of $259,296.43 with interest thereon at half Judgment rate from 7 October 2003 until the date of handing down of this assessment and thereafter at Judgment rate until satisfaction.
- There be an Order Nisi that the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant do jointly pay the Plaintiff his costs of this action on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed; unless an application is made to vary this Order Nisi it shall become absolute in 14 days.
Source and reliance status
District Court · 14 March 2007
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
District Court
Judgment· 14 March 2007
bjbj DCCJ 1411/2005
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
FORMTEXT
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1411 OF
FORMTEXT 5 ------------------------
BETWEEN
ELSE PETER GEORGE Plaintiff and
LAU KA LAI 1st Defendant
TANG KIN MING 2nd Defendant ------------------------ Coram: Deputy District Judge R. Cheung in Court Date of Hearing: 9th March 2007 Date of Handing down Assessment of Damages: 14th March 2007 -----------------------------------------
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES ----------------------------------------- 1. The 1st and 2nd Defendants have never appeared in these proceedings. Interlocutory Judgments were entered against the 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant on different dates for damages to be assessed.
2. The Plaintiff has called two witnesses. PW1 is the surveyor who made the motor survey report dated 17 October 2003. I am satisfied that PW1 is qualified to testify as an expert. I granted leave under Order 38 Rule 36 of the Rules of District Court.
3. The Plaintiff himself testified as PW2.
4. A number of documents were adduced at trial and marked as exhibits. These documents were not previously disclosed and no hearsay notice was served in respect of them. In the circumstances of this case, I do not consider it to be unfair for the Plaintiff to present such evidence at trial without due compliance with the Rules of Court.
5. I am satisfied that the 1st Defendant was the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. KW8452 and the 2nd Defendant was the driver on 7 October 2003 at about 21:48 hour. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff was driving his vehicle bearing registration no. KG261 at the time. Another driver was driving a vehicle bearing registration no. JF3342.
6. I find that the Plaintiff's vehicle was quite properly stopped at a road junction. Vehicle KW8452 was travelling behind vehicle JF3342 on another road leading to the same road junction. Vehicle JF3342 was quite properly slowing down before the road junction but vehicle KW8452 rammed into the rear of vehicle JF3342 with great force. The force of the impact pushed vehicle JF3342 forward so that it crashed into the off-side of the Plaintiff's vehicle. The Plaintiff's vehicle was thus pushed to its left and its near-side also crashed against the hillside slopes.
7. As a result, the Plaintiff's vehicle was seriously damaged.
8. I am satisfied that the accident was solely caused by the negligence of the 2nd Defendant. I am satisfied that the 1st Defendant is liable for the tort committed by the 2nd Defendant: Rambarran v. Gurrucharran (1970) 1 All E.R. 749 applied. They are jointly liable towards the Plaintiff.
9. I am satisfied that the reasonable repair costs for the damage to the Plaintiff's vehicle is $250,000. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff's vehicle was covered by comprehensive motor insurance. The Plaintiff has made a claim under the policy and has lost his no claim bonus in the sum of $8,596.43. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is also entitled to recover the motor survey fee of $700. The total is therefore $259,296.43.
10. I would therefore make the following orders: The 1st Defendant and the 2nd Defendant do jointly pay the Plaintiff the sum of $259,296.43 with interest thereon at half Judgment rate from 7 October 2003 until the date of handing down of this assessment and thereafter at Judgment rate until satisfaction. There be an Order Nisi that the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant do jointly pay the Plaintiff his costs of this action on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed. Unless an application is made to vary this Order Nisi, it shall become absolute in 14 days. (R. Cheung) Deputy District Judge Representation: Mr. Chiu Wai Shing, of Messrs. Simon C.W. Yung & Co., for the Plaintiff The 1st and 2nd Defendants: unrepresented, absent
PAGE -
PAGE - &`#$ Normal.dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.