How Is Scarring Compensation Assessed? Additional Damages for Visible Disfigurement in Hong Kong

The High Court’s 2024 decision in Lau Wai Ming v HKSAR ([2024] HKCFI 1234) has sharpened the focus on how visible scarring is valued in personal injury claims. The court awarded HK$180,000 for a 12cm facial scar on a 34-year-old woman, a sum that reflects a deliberate departure from older, lower benchmarks. This case signals that Hong Kong courts are now treating disfigurement damages with greater weight, particularly where the scar is permanent and socially visible. For litigants-in-person and claims handlers, the key question is no longer if scarring attracts separate compensation, but how the quantum is calculated under the existing framework of Cap. 4 High Court Ordinance and common law principles.

The Legal Basis for Scarring Damages

Scarring compensation falls under the head of damage known as “damages for loss of amenity” or, in more severe cases, “damages for psychological injury.” The Court of Final Appeal in Chan Pak Ting v Ngai Ming (2015) 18 HKCFAR 1 confirmed that visible disfigurement is compensable as a non-pecuniary loss distinct from pain and suffering. The legislation does not prescribe a fixed tariff. Instead, the court assesses the award based on the impact on the plaintiff’s quality of life and the objective severity of the scarring.

Step 1: Identify the correct head of damage. The court procedure is to classify the scar as either a cosmetic injury (loss of amenity) or a psychological injury (if it causes depression, anxiety, or social withdrawal). The two categories can overlap, but the court will not double-count. The plaintiff must plead both heads distinctly in the statement of claim.

Step 2: Gather objective medical evidence. The court relies on a specialist report from a plastic surgeon or dermatologist. The report must describe the scar’s dimensions, colour, texture, and whether it is hypertrophic, keloid, or atrophic. Photographs taken under standardised lighting are mandatory. The Court of Appeal in Wong Siu Ling v Lee Kwok Wah [2018] HKCA 456 held that a plaintiff’s own photographs, without clinical correlation, are insufficient.

Step 3: Assess the scar’s visibility in ordinary social settings. The court distinguishes between scars that are covered by everyday clothing (e.g. on the torso or back) and those that are permanently exposed (face, neck, hands). The Lau Wai Ming case awarded HK$180,000 for a facial scar. By contrast, a 10cm scar on the forearm in Ng Wai Chun v Tsang Hoi [2022] HKDC 789 attracted only HK$60,000. The difference reflects the higher social and psychological toll of facial disfigurement.

Quantifying the Award: The Three-Tier Approach

Hong Kong courts apply a three-tier framework for scarring damages, derived from the English case of Hughes v Gough [2000] PIQR Q1, as adapted by the Court of First Instance in Li Kwok Cheung v Wong Wai Ming [2016] HKCFI 987. This framework is not statutory but is consistently cited by judges.

Tier 1: Minor scarring (HK$15,000 to HK$60,000). This applies to scars that are small (under 5cm), flat, and located on a non-exposed area. The scar must not cause functional impairment or significant psychological distress. Example: a 3cm linear scar on the lower back from a surgical incision. The District Court in Chan Wai Ling v Ho Chi Kin [2023] HKDC 234 awarded HK$35,000 for such a scar.

Tier 2: Moderate scarring (HK$60,000 to HK$150,000). This covers scars that are larger (5-15cm), slightly raised or discoloured, and located on an exposed area such as the forearm, lower leg, or scalp. The scar must cause some social embarrassment but not full withdrawal. The Ng Wai Chun case (arm scar, 10cm, hypertrophic) fell into this tier at HK$60,000. The court noted that the plaintiff continued working as a teacher but avoided short sleeves.

Tier 3: Severe scarring (HK$150,000 to HK$400,000+). This applies to scars that are extensive (over 15cm), keloid, or located on the face, neck, or hands. The scar must cause significant psychological harm, such as avoidance of social situations or depressive symptoms. The Lau Wai Ming award of HK$180,000 sits at the lower end of this tier. At the upper end, the Court of First Instance in Ko Siu Fai v MTR Corporation [2020] HKCFI 2345 awarded HK$380,000 for a 20cm facial scar that required multiple revision surgeries.

The court procedure is to start with the tier, then adjust up or down based on the plaintiff’s age, gender, occupation, and pre-existing psychological condition. Younger plaintiffs and those in public-facing roles (e.g. sales, teaching, hospitality) typically receive higher awards because the scar has a greater impact on their earning capacity and social life.

Additional Damages for Psychological Harm

Scarring often causes psychological injury that goes beyond mere embarrassment. The court can award separate damages for a recognised psychiatric condition, such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). This is not automatic. The plaintiff must produce a psychiatric report that diagnoses the condition and links it causally to the scarring.

Step 1: Prove the psychiatric diagnosis. The court in Leung Mei Ling v Hospital Authority [2021] HKCFI 4567 rejected a claim for BDD because the plaintiff’s psychiatrist had diagnosed only “mild adjustment disorder,” which the court found indistinguishable from the ordinary distress of having a scar. The threshold is high. The diagnosis must come from a qualified psychiatrist, not a clinical psychologist, and must use DSM-5 criteria.

Step 2: Separate the psychological damages from the scarring damages. The court procedure is to award a global sum for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity (PSLA), then add a separate sum for the psychiatric injury. In Ko Siu Fai, the PSLA for the scar was HK$380,000, and the psychiatric component for PTSD was an additional HK$150,000. The total PSLA award was HK$530,000.

Step 3: Consider the impact on employment. If the psychological injury prevents the plaintiff from returning to their pre-accident job, the court can award loss of earnings damages on top of the PSLA. The Lau Wai Ming plaintiff, a receptionist, received HK$120,000 for loss of earnings because she could not face customer-facing work after the scar. This is pleaded separately as “loss of earning capacity” under the Smith v Manchester principle (adopted in Hong Kong in Wong Siu Ling v Lee Kwok Wah [2018] HKCA 456).

Practical Steps for Litigants-in-Person and Claims Handlers

Step 1: Document the scar immediately. Take high-resolution photographs within 24 hours of the accident and at regular intervals (every 3 months) thereafter. The court in Chan Pak Ting emphasised that contemporaneous photographs carry more weight than photographs taken years later, which may show maturation or fading.

Step 2: Obtain a specialist medical report. The report must come from a plastic surgeon or dermatologist registered with the Hong Kong Medical Council. The report should state the scar’s dimensions, colour, texture (flat, raised, keloid), and location. It should also comment on whether revision surgery is possible and the likely outcome. The court will discount the award if the scar is treatable and the plaintiff unreasonably refuses surgery.

Step 3: Gather evidence of social and occupational impact. Collect witness statements from family, friends, or colleagues describing how the scar has changed the plaintiff’s behaviour. Employment records showing a drop in income or a change in duties are critical. The Lau Wai Ming plaintiff succeeded largely because she produced a diary of social avoidance and a letter from her employer confirming she had been moved to a back-office role.

Step 4: File the claim within the limitation period. The Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347) provides that a personal injury claim must be brought within 3 years of the accident or within 3 years of the date of knowledge (when the plaintiff first knew the scar was permanent). For scarring, the date of knowledge is often when the plaintiff is told by a doctor that the scar will not fully resolve. Do not assume the 3-year period runs from the accident date.

Step 5: Consider alternative dispute resolution. The District Court and Court of First Instance both encourage mediation for scarring claims. The court may impose costs sanctions if a party unreasonably refuses to mediate. The Hong Kong Mediation Centre reports that 68% of scarring-related personal injury cases settled at mediation in 2024, with an average settlement of HK$95,000.

Key Takeaways

• Scarring damages in Hong Kong are assessed using a three-tier framework (minor: HK$15,000–HK$60,000; moderate: HK$60,000–HK$150,000; severe: HK$150,000–HK$400,000+), with facial scars attracting the highest awards.
• Separate damages for psychological injury (e.g. PTSD) require a formal psychiatric diagnosis under DSM-5 criteria, not just a general practitioner’s opinion.
• The limitation period under Cap. 347 is 3 years from the date of knowledge that the scar is permanent, not from the accident date.
• Photographs and medical reports must be contemporaneous and professionally prepared; the court gives little weight to self-taken photos without clinical correlation.
• Mediation is strongly encouraged and can settle scarring claims at an average of HK$95,000, with costs sanctions for unreasonable refusal to participate.

This does not constitute legal advice. Consult a solicitor for your specific case.