File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

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

TitleActuarial Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury Litigation: The Hong Kong Position and The Comparative International Aspects
Authors
Issue Date2000
PublisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/
Citation
Hong Kong Law Journal, 2000, v. 30 n. 2, p. 272-289 How to Cite?
AbstractConventionally, 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.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/87759
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 0.215
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.101

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChan, FWHen_HK
dc.contributor.authorChan, WSen_HK
dc.date.accessioned2010-09-06T09:34:00Z-
dc.date.available2010-09-06T09:34:00Z-
dc.date.issued2000en_HK
dc.identifier.citationHong Kong Law Journal, 2000, v. 30 n. 2, p. 272-289en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0378-0600en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/87759-
dc.description.abstractConventionally, 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.-
dc.languageengen_HK
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/en_HK
dc.relation.ispartofHong Kong Law Journalen_HK
dc.rightsCreative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License-
dc.titleActuarial Assessment of Damages in Personal Injury Litigation: The Hong Kong Position and The Comparative International Aspectsen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.openurlhttp://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&issn=0378-0600&volume=30&issue=2&spage=272&epage=289&date=2000&atitle=Actuarial+Assessment+of+Damages+in+Personal+Injury+Litigation:+The+Hong+Kong+Position+and+The+Comparative+International+Aspectsen_HK
dc.identifier.emailChan, FWH: fwhchan@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityChan, FWH=rp01280en_HK
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.hkuros55801en_HK
dc.identifier.volume30-
dc.identifier.issue2-
dc.identifier.spage272-
dc.identifier.epage289-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats