Yip Mau Kei v Wong Kam Tim

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date27 February 2015
Judgement NumberDCPI1905/2013
DCPI1905A/2013 YIP MAU KEI v. WONG KAM TIM

DCPI1905/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

PERSONAL INJURIES ACTION NO 1905 OF 2013

----------------------

BETWEEN

YIP MAU KEI(葉茂基) Plaintiff

and

WONG KAM TIM(黃錦添) Defendant

----------------------

Before: HH Judge Levy in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 25 February 2015
Date of Decision: 27 February 2015

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

Introduction

1. On 10 February 2015, I gave judgment in this action by awarding the plaintiff damages in the total sum of $140,405 for various heads of damage with interest, and costs on a nisi basis.

2. There are now two applications before me. One is by the defendant for payment out and for the variation of the costs order nisi.

3. The plaintiff’s application is for leave to appeal against my judgment.

4. These summonses were heard together. The plaintiff, as in the trial for assessment of damages, was still acting in person. The defendant was represented by Mr Chiu.

5. Though the plaintiff’s application was later in time, I will deal with the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal first as it is more straightforward.

Plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal

6. The grounds, loosely set out, are found in the plaintiff’s supporting affirmation and were further elaborated in his oral submissions.

7. Broadly, the plaintiff submitted that the amount of damages I awarded was inadequate, and that I had been too “lenient” to the defendant. He also said that I was wrong in rejecting his evidence, and in describing the 2nd accident that I referred to in my judgment as only a domestic accident. Lastly he said that I should not have accepted the documents in the hearing bundle as they were largely inaccurate due to the mistakes his former solicitors had allegedly made.

8. Mr Chiu opposed the application and submitted that my judgment was based on the medical evidence and that the allegation against his lawyers had no bearing in this leave application.

9. In applying for leave to appeal, the plaintiff needs to satisfy me that, in accordance with s.63A (2) of the District Court Ordinance, “(a) the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success; or (b) there is some other reason in the interests of justice why the appeal should be heard.”

10. When considering the plaintiff’s home-made grounds contained in his supporting affirmation and his oral submissions, I am prepared, given that the plaintiff is a litigant in person, to examine the grounds he puts forward in the most favourable light. I am however unable to discern any merits in his leave application.

11. His main primary ground about the alleged inadequacy of the award is only a bare assertion. As discussed in my judgment, the amount of damages that I had assessed was based on the medical evidence in this action.

12. As for his other ground concerning my wrongful rejection of his evidence, I do not think that this ground has any merit. My decision to reject his evidence, as set out in the judgment, was not just based on the...

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