IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI

MISC. APP 2025-05482 from
HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE 39 of 2022

BETWEEN:	Hong Kai Kwong 
					Plaintiff

	         AND:		     	Kiribati Housing Corporation 
					Defendant

Date of Hearing:		     	14 August 2025
Date of Judgment:			21 August 2025

Appearances:		   Ms. Taaira Timeon for the Plaintiff
                                               Ms. Kabweea Itintaake for the Defendant

RULING- General Damages

Introduction

1.	In my judgment at the beginning of this year, dated January 17, I awarded general damages to the plaintiff, and the amount is to be agreed upon by the parties or otherwise to be determined by this court. I was informed today that no agreement was reached, hence this hearing.

Submissions and Analysis

2.	The plaintiff pleaded $5000 for general damages in their claim. This court will use this amount as a margin for the amount to be awarded.

3.	The plaintiff, through counsel, argues that $5000 is the appropriate amount due to the plaintiff's frustrations, stress, and inconvenience caused by the defendant's wrongful action. 

4.	In support of their claim, the plaintiff relied on the decision of the High Court in Jong v Internal Revenue Board [2020] KIHC 37; Civil Case 10 of 2019 (11 December 2020). In that case, the court awarded $5000 for general damages. The court stated in that case that general damages are applicable to compensate a party for the inconvenience caused by the unlawful action of the defendant. 

5.	The defendant opposed the claim of $5000 for general damages for being excessive and proposed $1000 instead on the ground that the judgment awarded for special damage is small compared to the other cases in which the court awarded $5000. The defendant cited the case of Tebetanga v Betio Town Council [2014] KIHC 43; Civil Case 192/2010 (17 October 2014) to support that the court can also award an amount lesser than $5000, depending on the special damages amount awarded; the higher the amount, the higher the award for general damages. In that case, the court awarded special damages of $29,980 and general damages in the sum of $3000. 

6.	The pleadings in this case before this court show that the plaintiff claimed $8,517.60 for the salary difference from the date the plaintiff was wrongfully demoted (August 30, 2019), and $5000 for general damages. After considering arguments from both parties, I believe that the appropriate amount for general damages should correspond to the amount claimed for special damages, which should be fair given the circumstances of the case. 

7.	I agree with the defendant that claiming general damages of $5000 for special damages of $8517.60 is excessive. In many jurisdictions, guideline tables are used, which typically show that higher special damages lead to higher general damages. Others rely on case law precedents to ensure fairness among claimants with similar injuries or use a multiplier method. Based on the submissions before this court, the parties refer to case authorities where each side presents only one case law.  

8.	The defendant proposes $1000, while the plaintiff believes $5000 is reasonable but is also willing to accept $3000, in line with the court decision in Tebetanga v Betio Town Council. I have tried to see how the court in Tebetanga determined the appropriate amount to award for general damages. It is very difficult to quantify the right amount for general damages as they are not based on specific financial figures. I realise that in Tebetanga the sum awarded, which, in the view of that court, was fair, was $3000, which, according to my calculation, was 10% of the award for special damages. As I have stated that $5000 is excessive for this particular case, I believe $1000 is a fair amount and would be appropriate in this case for a claim of general damages.  

Order
9.	The plaintiff is awarded $1000 for the claim of general damages.
10.	Cost to the plaintiff to be agreed or taxed.

THE HON TETIRO SEMILOTA MAATE MOANIBA
Chief Justice