LIU WEIGUANG v. LI KENG KO AND ANOTHER

LIU WEIGUANG v. LI KENG KO AND ANOTHER

The judge exercised the court's jurisdiction to amend the judgment because the failure to include pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF for 20 October 2016 to 14 January 2020 was a clear omission amounting to an error that could be corrected without reopening contested issues. The amendment corrects an essential part...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKDC 357
Parties
Plaintiff: Liu Weiguang; 1st Defendant: Li Keng Ko; 2nd Defendant: Alpha Building Construction Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Case Number
DCPI2723/2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injuries Action / Judgment Amendment Application (post Judgment)
Outcome
Application to amend judgment allowed to correct omission; judgment amended and total damages increased to HK$1,503,677.13; order nisi as to costs (no order as to costs)
Legal Topics
Pre Trial Loss of Earnings, Post Trial Loss of Earnings, Amendment of Judgment, Slip Rule, Barrell Jurisdiction, Use of Statistical Wage Data, Costs Order
Source Language
en
Personal Injury Civil Procedure Damages Computation Pre Trial Loss of Earnings Post Trial Loss of Earnings Amendment of Judgment Slip Rule Barrell Jurisdiction +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liu Weiguang

Plaintiff

Li Keng Ko

1st Defendant

Alpha Building Construction Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injuries Action / Judgment Amendment Application (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court may amend its judgment post-delivery to correct an omission in calculating pre-trial loss of earnings for the period 20 October 2016 to 14 January 2020
  2. 2 Whether the omission was a clerical/clear mistake or would amount to reconsideration of issues already argued
  3. 3 Appropriate method for calculating notional and alternative earnings (use of Census and Statistics Department data v actual earnings)

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised the court's jurisdiction to amend the judgment because the failure to include pre-trial loss of earnings and MPF for 20 October 2016 to 14 January 2020 was a clear omission amounting to an error that could be corrected without reopening contested issues. The amendment corrects an essential part of the damages calculation using wage statistics (CSD data) consistent with the original judgment, results in revised pre-trial and post-trial loss figures and increases total damages to HK$1,503,677.13, and the amendment was permitted without disturbing the appeal process.

Court Disposition

Application to amend judgment allowed to correct omission; judgment amended and total damages increased to HK$1,503,677.13; order nisi as to costs (no order as to costs)

Orders

  • Paragraphs 72, 73, 75, 77, 81 and 82 of the judgment amended as set out in decision (incorporating updated CSD-based calculations)
  • Judgment amended to order 1st and 2nd defendants to pay damages of HK$1,503,677.13 to the plaintiff