CHANG CHIN TSAI v. SHUM KIN WONG & HONG KONG & CHINA TRANSPORTATION CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HCPI 1048/2006

S’s words:-
A simple traffic accident case. The ground of convenience is again pleaded by the Defendants as their Defence. Further, no evidence has been suggested by the Defendants for explaining the relationship of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. If I am right, there is something called “Sanderson costs order”. However, it is too early for one to suggest whether the same is applicable.

However, it is obvious that the Plaintiff should be entitled for some compensation. In no doubt, if he could find a suitable lawyer to represent him, he could present much a better picture of his case to the Court.

Why he is now unrepresented? I don’t want to speculate. But, with his previous calculation of his claim over HK$20,000,000.00, I would also refuse to act for him.

--- quote from judgment ---

判決書日期 ： 2007年8月 31日

原告向兩被告追討人身受傷賠償 $29,251,000，扣除被告承認要負擔的10%共分疏忽責任，申索額淨值為 $26,325,900。

關家靜聆案官在2007年4月25日將這案轉介至區域法院，關聆案官認為原告若勝訴的話，法庭判給他的賠償也不會超過 100萬元，故作出此安排。原告現就這命令提出上訴。

第一被告因這意外被控不小心駕駛。他在2004年7月27日在荃灣裁判處承認控罪。

第一和第二被告經代表律師存檔了抗辯書，否認原告的指控，他倆在抗辯書更說意外是由原告的不小心造成，他倆也否認了互相的僱傭或代理關係，但沒有說明當時第二被告是否擁有該小巴或第一被告當時為何會駕駛該小巴。他們更指第一被告在荃灣裁判處承認不小心駕駛，只是為了節省時間和金錢而無奈地承認了控罪，但他們說第一被告的定罪並不等於原告無須負上疏忽的責任。

兩被告反對這上訴，代表他們的陳律師說關聆案官是有權把這案轉介到區域法院。陳律師更引用 Hang Seng Credit Card Ltd v Tsang Nga Lee, HCA 13228/1999 和Wong Miu Kwan v FPD Savills Property Management Ltd, HCPI 1061/2003作參考。

有關本院轉介案件到區域法院的原則，陳律師引用了石輝法官在Wong Miu Kwan案的第21段判詞，石輝法官說當聆案官要決定是否把本院的案件轉介至區域法院時，除了要考慮原告承認已收到的僱員補償和原告承認要負的共分疏忽責任外，還要考慮下列3點：

“ (a) In the absence of abuse, a plaintiff should be entitled to frame his case in the manner that he wishes.
(b) At an interlocutory stage, it would not be proper for the court or a master to view the plaintiff’s claim in the same way as it would be viewed at trial by weighing the different evidence or by believing or disbelieving some or all of the evidence. That exercise can only be carried out when all the evidence, cross-examination and submission has been heard, particularly where there are factual and or other disputes between the parties, as for instance disputed expert opinion.
(c) Accordingly, the plaintiff’s case on quantum as framed by him ought to be viewed at its highest when determining the proper jurisdiction where the case should be brought.”
「 (a) 原告只要不濫用司法程序，是有權選擇以甚麼方式擬定他的案情。
(b) 在非正審階段，法庭或聆案官不應像正審般去衡量不同的證據或選取某些或全部證據，以審視原告的申索，這步驟應在聆聽了所有證據、盤問和陳詞後才進行，特別是與案雙方在事實或其他方面有爭議，例如有不同的專家意見。
(c) 在決定案件的合適司法管轄權時，應以原告擬定的申索最高額為準。」（譯文）

上述兩個案件的原告所受的傷痛都比本案原告嚴重，所以本案原告應得的痛苦和失去生活情趣的賠償應是低於他們的數額，陳律師說原告在這項賠償應得的數額不會超過 $300,000。本席認為這說法合理。

本席認為石輝法官在Wong Miu Kwan案所指的濫用司法程序，必定包括原告人憑空作出的大額和沒有基礎的索償行為，本案原告要求的$29,251,000賠償，正是這種行為，所以關聆案官不理會這些申索而把這案轉介到區域法院是對的。

基於上述分析和理由，本席認為這上訴是沒有理據，所以本席現撤銷這上訴，本席並作出臨時訟費令，要原告就這上訴支付訟費予兩被告，若與案各方在14天內不就這臨時命令提出修定申請，這命令將在14天後自動作實。