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 2 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 defendant's 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 s. 8 of the Civil Law Ordinance for the deceased's loss of expectation of life and damages under s. 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 son's 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 Appeal by (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 people's 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 father's 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 father's 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.

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 s. 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