Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Multipliers

  • 10 Feb 2017

    TAM MEI KAM v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TAM MEI KAM v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV181/2016

    The appeal was dismissed because the judge lawfully exercised his statutory discretion under ss3–5 Cap 481 in ordering generous periodic payments instead of a lump sum: given the applicant's advanced age, health and capacity concerns, the need to secure ongoing payment of medical expenses, the ability to vary payments under s8, and the limited maintenance purpose of the Ordinance for non‑spousal applicants, a lump sum was not appropriate; the judge did not misapply s5 or take irrelevant matters into account and his conclusion fell within a permissible range of judgment.

  • 7 Feb 2013

    CHAN PAK TING v. CHAN CHI KUEN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHAN PAK TING v. CHAN CHI KUEN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI235/2011

    Cookson v Knowles assumption of a 4.5% net real return is no longer valid in Hong Kong. The court set differentiated discount rates by duration based on reasonable investment portfolios and recent historical performance: -0.5% for plaintiffs with future needs up to 5 years; 1% for needs up to 10 years; 2.5% for needs exceeding 10 years. Management fees should be deducted where the chosen portfolio requires active management; wage-price differentials in Hong Kong are insufficiently large to justify separate earnings and non-earnings rates at present. The appropriate portfolio mixes and histori…

  • 18 Dec 2007

    LO KAM MUI v. O PUI YIU

    Citation
    LO KAM MUI v. O PUI YIU
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCPI1813/2007

    Court accepted plaintiff's factual case on earnings and dependency, adopted multipliers of 14 for the mother and 2 for the younger brother for post-trial loss, awarded pre-trial dependency HK$106,897 and post-trial dependency HK$481,320, rejected claim for pain and suffering due to probable prolonged unconsciousness, allowed HK$100,000 for loss of accumulation of wealth based on deceased's frugal and responsible disposition, denied award for gratuity services, allowed agreed bereavement HK$150,000 and funeral HK$50,500, and reduced the total damages by 50% for liability.

  • 4 May 2007

    TSANG YIN HA v. HUI KA WING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TSANG YIN HA v. HUI KA WING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI212/2006

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff and family members were dependants; applied case law permitting awards for loss of accumulation of wealth without an established savings pattern (Lam Pak Chiu), selected appropriate multipliers (15, 8, 10, 8) based on ages and prospects, and quantified damages accordingly, awarding a total of HKD 1,634,538 and directing specified interest and costs orders.

  • 20 Sept 2000

    Wong Po Lin and Another v. Dragages et Travaux Publics and Penta-Ocean Construction Co. Ltd.

    Citation
    Wong Po Lin and Another v. Dragages et Travaux Publics and Penta-Ocean Construction Co. Ltd.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI593/1999

    On the balance of the evidence Master Cannon found the deceased's basic wage was $800/day and that a realistic working pattern was 28 days/month with overtime on 21 days at $200/day, producing monthly earnings $26,600 at death and notional assessment income $30,524; the court adopted an itemised household dependency figure of $15,100 (51% of income), applied a common multiplier of 14 for immediate family and 6 for extended dependants, awarded loss of accumulation of wealth in the net amount approximating HK$900,000, allowed bereavement HK$70,000 and funeral HK$178,600, directed deduction of e…

  • 20 Jun 1991

    LEE SIU CHUN AND OTHERS v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION

    Citation
    LEE SIU CHUN AND OTHERS v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CORPORATION
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4704/1990

    The court accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that the deceased was earning at least HK$13,500 per month at death, that a reasonable present earning figure is HK$15,864 and a median pre-trial earning is HK$14,682; dependency was properly apportioned among seven household members; in the absence of a savings pattern the court may adopt a notional savings rate and 10% of net earnings is appropriate here; applying agreed multipliers produced the quantified FAO and LARCO awards set out in the judgment.

  • 5 Oct 1990

    LO SUI KUEN AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG TING FOR

    Citation
    LO SUI KUEN AND ANOTHER v. YEUNG TING FOR
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3948/1988

    Court accepted employer's salary evidence, found promotion to be probable and fixed notional monthly earnings at trial date of $10,298.55; after detailed assessment of household expenditure and lifestyle the court fixed the free balance at 45%; applied median income for pre-trial loss over 57.5 months and the agreed multiplier of 15 for future loss; awarded specified sums for funeral, loss of expectation of life, pre-trial and future loss, ordered interest at specified rates and costs to plaintiff with a certificate for counsel.

  • 13 Feb 1990

    TAM PO HONG AND ANOTHER v. CHOW HO MING

    Citation
    TAM PO HONG AND ANOTHER v. CHOW HO MING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA4591/1988

    Master accepted adjusted earnings figures and evidence shortcomings: pre‑assessment median monthly income assessed at $3,955, post‑assessment earnings set at $4,000, free‑balance adopted at 40%, multiplier of 17 applied; pre‑assessment loss calculated at $75,936, post‑assessment loss at $249,600 (total pecuniary loss $325,536); awarded $30,000 for loss of expectation of life and special damages of $9,494; interest ordered as specified and costs awarded to Plaintiff on assessment with certificate for counsel.

  • 2 Oct 1989

    WAI KANG KWAN AND ANOTHER v. WONG WING HONG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    WAI KANG KWAN AND ANOTHER v. WONG WING HONG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1803/1989

    The court rejected the defendant's pro rata entitlement approach and based dependency awards on actual and probable contributions of the deceased (accepting $50 to each brother and $1,330 to parents at death, escalated to trial and post-trial figures using agreed multipliers and observed wage growth); the court refused a speculative award for accumulation of wealth but awarded an additional conservative multiplier of three for continued parental support on the evidence of probable post-multiplier contributions.

  • 9 Nov 1988

    CHONG CHOI WOON AND OTHERS v. WHAMPOA MARINE TERMINALS LTD.

    Citation
    CHONG CHOI WOON AND OTHERS v. WHAMPOA MARINE TERMINALS LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1492/1987

    The court increased the conventional award for loss of expectation of life to $30,000, allowed funeral expenses of $34,060, calculated pre-trial loss of earnings as $180,183 and applied a 70% free balance to yield $126,128, calculated future loss using a monthly multiplicand of $5,497 with a multiplier of 13 and a 55% post-trial free balance yielding $471,643, rejected allowance for additional $50,000 for increments/bonuses, offset the award by employee's compensation of $282,500, and apportioned the net award among the widow and children with specified interest rates and investment direction…