THOMSON CJ This is an appeal from a decision of Azmi J.

The plaintiff is the father and the administrator of the estate of one Wan Thai Thong who was killed on 2nd August, 1957, in an accident to a motor car in which he was a passenger and which was driven by the defendant. It was averred and admitted that the accident was due to the defendants negligence. In the circumstances the only question to be decided in the present proceedings was the quantum of damages.

The plaintiff claimed special damages, damages under section 8 of the Civil Law Ordinance for the deceaseds loss of expectation of life and damages under section 7 of the Ordinance for loss of services. In the event Azmi J. awarded damages as follows:--

Special damages $ 783

Damages for loss of expectation of life $ 5,000

Damages for loss of services nil

$ 5,783

No complaint has been made regarding the amount awarded for special damages. The defendant, however, has appealed against the award of $ 5,000 for loss of expectation of life as being excessive and the plaintiff has cross-appealed against the decision that he is not entitled to any damages for loss of his sons services.

The facts have never been seriously in dispute.

At the time of his death the deceased was a young man of 19 years of age, the same age as ordinary seaman Appleby (see Bishop v Cunard White Star Co Ltd [1950] P 240. He was a pupil in the commercial class of the Anderson School at Ipoh. He was said to be of intelligence slightly above the average, to be healthy and keen on games and to be a friendly, social sort of person. At the time of his death his father was a man of just over 40 years of age who carried on some sort of business as a building contractor and looking after other peoples rubber estates. The deceased helped him in this work, presumably, as he was attending school, in his spare time, and was paid "about $ 200 a month". It would appear that the main work done by the deceased consisted in looking after his fathers stocks of building material. His father said that if he had had to employ another man to take the place of his son he would have had to pay $ 400 a month, but apparently he had not found it necessary to do so. According to the accountant whom he employed to make his Income Tax returns the fathers income varied between $ 14,000 and $ 27,000 a year and in view of the source from which it came this evidence was unlikely to err on the high side.

In the circumstances Azmi J. came to the conclusion that the father had suffered no loss and accordingly was not entitled to damages under section 7. With respect, I entirely agree with this conclusion. After all if the father had had to employ a man at $ 400 a month to do what the deceased had been doing for $ 200, then the argument that he had suffered loss would have been tenable. But that was not what happened. What happened was that he was able to get along without anybody doing the work and presumably he did it himself or it was not done. In neither case can he claim to have suffered any pecuniary loss.

It was no doubt a source of satisfaction to him to have been assisted in his business by his own son who would ultimately inherit it, and in the loss of this satisfaction he is entitled to sympathy, but to have damages he must show actual pecuniary loss. As was said by Lord Wright in the case of Davies v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, Ltd [1942] AC 601, 617:--

"There is no question here of what may be called sentimental damage,

bereavement or pain and suffering. It is a hard matter of pounds,

shillings and pence."

I would accordingly dismiss the cross-appeal.

With regard to the damages under section 8 for loss of expectation of life, Azmi J. based himself on the decision of the House of Lords in the well-known case of Benham v Gambling [1941] AC 157. That case, he pointed out, decided that damages for loss of expectation of life should not be calculated solely or mainly on the basis of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document