Thin Skull Rule (Eggcell Rule)

  1. 香港高等法院在 Ng Kong and Golden Caterers Limited 案 (HCPI 206/2004) 第 86 段 :

    判詞第 86 段被引述如下:

    The scope and operation of the thin skull rule was explained by Edmund Davis J in Love v Port of London Authority [1959] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 541 at 545 :

    “To return to the plaintiff’s condition from the accident up to today, one has to remember, of course, that the defendants must take the plaintiff as they find him, that is to say, with his already vulnerable personality.  Accordingly, as far as special damages are concerned; (a) if, although a degree of neurosis because of the heart condition alone would have persisted and probably progressed even had there been no accident, such neurosis would not have prevented the plaintiff from working, and (b) if the plaintiff’s failure to work is attributable at least in part of neurosis caused by the accident, meaning thereby that but for his neurosis there would have been no absence from work, the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in full for financial losses flowing from such absence, even though there was an accompaniment of hear disease, and neurosis caused thereby.  For example, and taking Dr. Edwards’s rough percentages, if what we may call the 70% heart neurosis would not have prevented the Plaintiff working; but the addition of the 30% accident neurosis produced total incapacity, the defendants have to recompense the plaintiff for all special damages arising from the 100% neurosis which developed from these two causes.  Conversely where the interruption in work would have occurred in any event, being caused by the progress of and crisis in the heart condition which has nothing to do with the accident, no special damages are recoverable.”

    引述完畢:

  2. 律師通常好大機會會向客人指出,thin skull rule 只適用於身體傷害案件,但土地審裁處法官 HH Judge Yung 在 Langrade Development Ltd. v. Secretary for the Enviroment, Transport and Works [LDRW 2/2005] 使用在非個人傷亡案件說    「14. As a fallback position, the Respondent’s expert reasoned that since it had been the Applicant’s failure to complete the development within the original Building Covenant period that had   led to the penal fate of 14% on open market site value, the compensation for extra premium should be based on the rate of 2% for initial extension rather than the penal rate of 14%. In that case, the compensation for extra premium would be assessed at $ 457,800 plus consultancy fee $50,000 totalling $507,800. The Applicant’s   counsel argued that before the Respondent decided to compulsorily occupy the “Site”, the Respondent had had full knowledge of the fact that there had been previous extensions of the Building Covenant and the premium for the next extension would be calculated at 14% of open market site value, then because of Government’s compulsory occupation of the “Site”, an additional extension of the Building Covenant had become necessary and the premium for this additional extension had been charged by the Lands Department at 14% and paid by the Applicant. He thus submitted that the Respondent must take the victim as they find him—the thin skull rule must apply. We accept this argument and rule that the compensation should be awarded on the basis of 14% on open market site value」。      這個判決被上訴庭在 CACV 295/2008 案推反,     但香港終審法院在 FACV4/2010 案推反上訴庭的判決,並還原/恢復 (restored) 土地審裁處的判決。

  3. Irwin Law 的資料
  4. HKUSpace 的資料;
  5. Ambridge Law 的資料
  6. Wikipedia 的資料
  7. Rasansky Law Firm 的資料
  8. e-lawresources.co.uk 的資料