1. Paragraph 1 of the judgment states that this is an assessment of damages for personal injuries suffered in a road traffic accident that occurred on 27 June 2014. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff, who was born on 1 October 1959, was about 54.5 years of age. Liability was admitted on 25 November 2015, before proceedings were commenced on 29 May 2017. Interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed was entered on 8 June 2017 against the 1st and 2nd defendants. At the time of the accident, the 1st defendant was the driver of the 2nd defendant’s bus bearing registration number HS539. 2. Paragraphs 2 to 12 of the judgment contain a summary of the contents of the assessment bundles and the course of the trial. 3. Paragraph 13 of the judgment contains an overview of the parties’ cases and reproduces a table showing the amounts claimed by the plaintiff and the amounts conceded by the defendants. This table is set out below: 4. Paragraphs 14 to 22 of the judgment contain a review of the documentary evidence in relation to the accident that occurred, including statements taken by the police and photographs taken at the scene. 5. Paragraph 23 of the judgment sets out in detail the various treatments received by the plaintiff since the accident. 6. Paragraphs 24 to 37 of the judgment contain a review of the opinion evidence of the following experts: 7. Paragraphs 38 to 49 of the judgment contain a review of the plaintiff’s evidence. 8. Paragraphs 50 to 70 of the judgment contain the analysis of the evidence and the findings of the court. The key findings are contained in paragraphs 71 and 72 of the judgment which are set out below: “71. The plaintiff has told me a multitude of lies. He is a consummate, flagrant and egregious liar and I disbelieve his evidence. I find that he is a malingerer. I find that he suffered a contusion of the face and a mild neck soft tissue injury without any complications in the accident on 27 June 2014. I entirely reject his evidence and his claims that he suffered a multitude of disabilities, including his claims that he suffered frequent headaches and dizziness and severe headaches at night; severe pain on the back of his neck and persistent pain on his back; weakness of right hand, numbness and loss of sensation of his thumb and fingers; impaired hearing in his right ear; urinary incontinence; mentally slow in response and reduce concentration; depression, auditory hallucinations and suicidal ideas; being wheelchair-bound because of paralysis and loss of sensation of right leg. 72. I find that sometime after 31 August 2015, as discovered by an examination on 15 December 2017, the plaintiff suffered from a small PED which was not present in the previous examination conducted on or about 31 August 2015. This was a primary retinal disease not caused by ocular trauma. As a result, his right eye vision was blurred with distorted images. The newly diagnosed PED in the right eye and its subsequent visual impairment were not related to the accident on 27 June 2014 and his current ocular complaints of blurred and distorted vision in his right eye are not attributable to the accident. I reject the plaintiff’s evidence that he suffered from visual problems as a result of the accident on 27 June 2014.” 9. Paragraphs 73 to 76 contain the assessment of the quantum of the plaintiff’s claims by the court. The conclusions of the court are contained in paragraph 77 of the judgment which is set out below: “77. The plaintiff received the amount of $652,808.33 as employees’ compensation from Artwell Tapioca Limited on or before mid-March 2019 [E/361-363] which far exceeds my assessment of damages in this case as shown on the following table. Accordingly, I do not award any damages nor any interest on damages to the plaintiff. 10. Paragraphs 78 to 80, which are set out below, contain judge’s orders and directions in this action: “78. I dismiss the plaintiff’s action. I make a cost order nisi that the plaintiff pays the costs of the action to the 1st and 2nd defendants on an indemnity basis, to be taxed if not agreed. Such an order will become absolute unless a written application is made within 14 days by any party to vary it. I direct that such written application may be made by letter addressed to my clerk. Such letter should state the variation of my order that is sought and the reasons for seeking such variation. Upon application being made, I will dispose of the same on paper. I may or may not give directions to serve further written submissions before disposing of the same on paper. 79. As the cost order nisi will impact upon the Director of Legal Aid, I grant him leave to apply, by letter, to vary the order within 14 days and/or to apply for wasted costs orders, in respect of which I had made certain observations in paragraph 26 of my recent decision in Lai Sin Yan Elsie v. Tata Communications (Hong Kong) Ltd. HCPI 1092/2015, 14 August 2020.If application is made for wasted costs orders, I will give appropriate directions to enable affected parties to be heard and to deal with the same. 80. I also direct the solicitors for the defendants to send a copy of this judgment to Artwell Tapioca Limited or to their solicitors.” 11. A full translation of this judgment is available upon request.