Actuarial Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury Litigation: The Hong Kong Position and The Comparative International Aspects

Abstract

Conventionally, the Hong Kong Courts follow English authorities in choosing multipliers in personal injury litigation, Most judges select the multiplier by reference to a spread of multipliers in comparable English and Hong Kong cases, The House of Lords deviated from this approach recently in Wells v Wells [1999] AC 345. It approved actuarial evidence as the primary method of assessing future pecuniary loss. The actuarial tables, known as the 'Ogden Tables', issued by the British Government Actuary's Department should be regarded as the starting point for selection of the appropriate multipliers in England, Although in theory the courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region are not bound by this House of Lord decision, it is anticipated that the conventional approach to choosing multipliers in Hong Kong will be hotly contested. This article attempts to analyse the legal and practical implications of Wells v Wells in Hong Kong, and surveys the modern trend of using actuarial evidence in personal injury litigation in other major jurisdictions.