The plaintiff in this case has appealed against the quantum of damages relating to loss of earning capacity for which I awarded a sum of $12,000.

Mr. S.C. Chan for the plaintiff submitted that for the loss of future earnings the plaintiff should be awarded a sum of $92,300. He said that the plaintiff earned about $1,250 per month before the accident and thereafter his earnings were reduced to half that amount. He referred to the 1st Schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1952 where the minimum percentage of loss of earning capacity for loss of leg below the knee is stated at 50%. Mr. Chan submitted that this should be adopted in arriving at the sum for the plaintiff's loss of future earnings. He submitted that the plaintiff was aged 32 years, he could work up to 60 years and he had a working life of 28 years. By scaling it down to 21 years the amount on the actuarial table would come to $92,300 as loss of future earnings — at $600 per month.

In my view however there was insufficient evidence to make any award for the loss of future earnings. It is true that the plaintiff was handicapped because his leg had been amputated below the knee but on the evidence of DW3 the chief clerk of the estate which had given out contracts to the plaintiff there does not appear to he much loss of earnings for the plaintiff when he resumed the contracts himself in 1979. The position in relation to the value of contract work which was given to the plaintiff from 1977 to 1979 was as follows:— 1.January 1977 to April 1977 (Met with accident on 30.4.77)$26,120.76 2.May 1977 to December 1977 (This contract was taken over by the plaintiff's brother Sam Woh Choo)$60,766.153.January 1978 to December 1978 (Also taken over by Sam Woh Choo)$89,295.87 4.January 1979 to March 1979 — about (Contract taken out by plaintiff himself)$6,000.005.April to December 1979 (To plaintiff himself)$56,930.18

According to the evidence of the defendant's first three witnesses which I accepted the plaintiff had been seen driving around in the estate in his car as well as in his pick-up van after the accident when he resumed his contracts in 1979. He has also walked along the terraced estate supervising the work. And basing on his satisfactory work in 1979 when he himself resumed the contract work there was no reason why the plaintiff would not get the contract work in future.

The Workmen's Compensation Ordinance is not applicable in this case although it may serve as a guide in suitable cases where the injured person is in employment of a kind not very different from those who are protected by the Ordinance. In the present case however I do not think that the plaintiff who is an estate contractor can avail himself of any assistance from the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance.

In the circumstances therefore I was of the view that there was not sufficient evidence on which I could base an award for future loss of earnings. After he had himself taken over the contracts from 1979 the plaintiff had been earning from his contract work just as he was before he met with the accident. Unlike in some cases where there is clear evidence of specific loss of future earnings which can he reasonably calculated this case appears to be on a somewhat different footing. As an estate contractor the plaintiff still was in a position to earn just about the same amount as before the accident but in view of his disability there was a case for awarding some loss of earning capacity. For this heading I was of the view that a sum of $12,000 was fair and reasonable.

From the above judgment the defendant appealed to the Federal Court.

FEDERAL COURT.

SC Chan for the appellant.

Dato' Wong Seng Chow for the respondent.

Cur. Adv. Vult.

Mohamed Azmi J

(delivering the judgment of the Court): We dismissed this appeal and now give our reasons.

This was an appeal against quantum of general damages in respect of future loss of earning and loss of earning capacity.

The appellant in this case w