Crown Motors Ltd v Li Tak Yin

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date23 July 2007
Judgement NumberDCCJ5427/2006
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ005427/2006 CROWN MOTORS LTD v. LI TAK YIN

DCCJ5427/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5427 OF 2006

______________________

BETWEEN

CROWN MOTORS LIMITED Plaintiff
and
LI TAK YIN Defendant

______________________

Coram : H H Judge Leung (in Court)

Date of Hearing : 23 July 2007

Date of Judgment : 23 July 2007

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1. The Plaintiff was and is a company carrying on the business of, amongst others, providing repair and maintenance service for motor vehicles exclusively distributed by the Plaintiff in Hong Kong. In this action, the Plaintiff claims against the Defendant for HK$93,000 being charges for storing the Defendant’s private car which was deposited with the Plaintiff in January 2006.

2. Default judgment was entered against the Defendant on 12 January 2007. According to the pleading, this is a claim for liquidated sum of damages. However, there is absence of pleading of any contractual basis for the claim. Therefore, judgment was only entered for damages to be assessed. As made clear at the beginning of the hearing, the Plaintiff is not claiming any amount in excess of the pleaded sum.

3. The Defendant did not appear at the last hearing of the notice of appointment for assessment or at this hearing. The affirmation of service filed by the solicitors for the Plaintiff confirms that previous directions and notice of this hearing as well as the relevant documents have been served on the Defendant at her last known address. I see no reason for preventing the Plaintiff from proceeding with proving its case today.

4. The background of this case was as follows. On 13 January 2006, the Defendant’s private car was arranged to be towed to the Plaintiff’s service centre for repair. The Plaintiff was supposed to contact a person surnamed Cheung whose mobile telephone number was given for such purpose. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s staff at the service centre telephoned Cheung and explained the towing fee and inspection fee to be charged. It was explained that an estimate of the repair charges would be provided to Cheung after the inspection. Cheung confirmed the instruction to proceed with the inspection.

5. On 17 January 2006, the Plaintiff informed Cheung on the telephone of the estimated repair charges. Cheung suggested that he needed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT