Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment of future loss

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2018

LEE CHIT MING v. MAN SIU HUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCA 66
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV91/2017

The master's detailed findings on credibility, causation and earnings were supported by contemporaneous records and the joint medical and consultation notes; the defendant failed to establish palpable error or an evidential basis to displace those findings, so the Court of Appeal will not interfere with the master's assessment of past and future loss of earnings, including the applied multiplier and modest discount.
14 Nov 2017

WONG BIK FAI v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG BIK FAI v. DRAGAGES HONG KONG LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV217/2016

There was no evidential basis to limit the plaintiff's working life to age 60 or to deduct seven months for unrelated personal factors; the plaintiff discharged the burden of showing he would have worked to age 65 but for the accident; accordingly continuous pre-trial and post-trial loss of earnings to 65 were awarded and the trial award was varied to HKD 1,672,527.38 after applying 10% contributory negligence and deducting employees' compensation, with interest directions as set out in the annexed calculation.
22 Jan 2009

HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUMMINGBIRD MUSIC LTD v. DINO ACCONCI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA836/2007

The court held both the first and second sets of written artist, management and writer agreements were not void as restraints of trade and the second agreements were not procured by undue influence or duress; the plaintiff did not repudiate the agreements nor commit actionable breaches of fiduciary duty or misappropriation; consequently defendants' defences and counterclaims were dismissed and judgment entered for the plaintiff for damages assessed at HKD 5,058,000, with interest to be fixed and costs awarded to the plaintiff (save specified exceptions).
10 Jul 2008

CHEUNG MUN YI v. TAM SIU WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG MUN YI v. TAM SIU WING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI809/2006

The accident caused the plaintiff's physical injuries and was a materially contributing cause of her psychiatric illness; the question of promotion and contract renewal depended on the hypothetical actions of a third party (the Commissioner) so the plaintiff need only show a substantial chance that promotion and renewal would have occurred. The court found a 70% chance and applied a 30% discount to lost‑chance heads, awarding judgment for the plaintiff in the aggregate sum of HKD 3,680,319.37, together with specified interest and costs nisi.
24 Sept 2002

LEUNG FUN HING v. EXTREME GOOD (ASIA) CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

LEUNG FUN HING v. EXTREME GOOD (ASIA) CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI57/2001

The court accepted the plaintiff's and witness Ho's credible evidence over the defence accident report, found the chain hook lacked a safety catch causing it to detach and strike the plaintiff, concluded both defendants jointly 100% liable, rejected contributory negligence, accepted wage records for pre-accident earnings, applied an 18-month period off work, used a six-year multiplier for future loss and calculated a final award of HK$1,436,071 after deducting agreed ECC compensation.
19 Dec 1997

LEUNG CHUN TUNG v. SIU WAI CHEONG

Citation

LEUNG CHUN TUNG v. SIU WAI CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI883/1995

Defendant was liable for negligent driving; defendant failed to discharge shifted burden after conviction for careless driving; plaintiff was not contributorily negligent on available evidence; damages awarded in quantified sums including substantial general damages for severe pelvic and hip injuries, past and future loss of earnings using a multiplier of 15, and additional awards for part-time earnings, convalescence and loss of earning capacity.
15 Feb 1984

SZETO CHOP AND OTHERS v. CHUTE INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

SZETO CHOP AND OTHERS v. CHUTE INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBG4/1981

Tenants are entitled to compensation under s18/18A for loss of rental value and costs of repairs and damage caused by shoring; loss of rental value was assessed on evidence and reasonable projection of duration until June 1986, loss of profits was not separately awarded because rent reduction compensates indirectly, and owners are ordered to make good remaining damage under s18(4).
4 Nov 1983

LAW YUEN WAN AND ANOTHER v. TAI KAM TONG AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW YUEN WAN AND ANOTHER v. TAI KAM TONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5443/1979

The driver (1st defendant) and owner (2nd defendant) were negligent because the driver failed to keep a proper lookout when approaching a kindergarten and was travelling at about 25 m.p.h.; the teacher (3rd defendant) exercised reasonable care and was not negligent; the infant was not contributorily negligent due to her age; damages awarded to plaintiff against 1st and 2nd defendants accordingly.
5 Aug 1983

CHAN CHOI CHEONG v. DOVER INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

CHAN CHOI CHEONG v. DOVER INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1482/1981

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's account, found the machine was under the sole control of the defendant after being set down, applied res ipsa loquitur and held the defendant wholly negligent; damages awarded reduced by prior salary and workmen's compensation payments.
31 Oct 1978

LAU KAI TAI v. TSANG CHOR CHAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU KAI TAI v. TSANG CHOR CHAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2500/1977

The driver was negligent for failing to exercise proper care when turning from Argyle Street into Kadoorie Avenue; the plaintiff was contributorily negligent to the extent of 30%; damages were assessed (general damages $52,000, special $700) then reduced for contributory negligence producing a judgment of $36,890 with specified distribution and investment orders for the minor's benefit.