Transport Arrangements After a Traffic Accident: Claiming for Taxi Fares and Non-Emergency Ambulance Services

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

The cost of private ambulance transport in Hong Kong has risen sharply since the 2023 revision of the Fire Services Department’s fee schedule for non-emergency ambulance services. A single non-emergency ambulance transfer from a public hospital to a private rehabilitation centre now costs between HK$1,200 and HK$2,500, depending on distance and the level of medical support required. For litigants pursuing a personal injury claim after a traffic accident, these transport expenses—alongside taxi fares to medical appointments—are recoverable as special damages. However, the court procedure is strict: the claimant must prove that the transport was reasonably necessary and that the cost was incurred as a direct result of the accident. The District Court and Court of First Instance have repeatedly refused to award transport costs where the claimant failed to keep contemporaneous receipts or where the journey was not medically justified. This article sets out the legislative framework under Cap. 4 High Court Ordinance and Cap. 336 District Court Ordinance, explains the evidentiary requirements, and provides a step-by-step guide for claiming taxi fares and non-emergency ambulance services in a traffic accident compensation case.

The Legal Basis for Recovering Transport Costs

Special Damages Under Hong Kong Common Law

The court procedure is that transport costs are claimed as special damages. Special damages are quantifiable out-of-pocket expenses incurred between the date of the accident and the date of trial. The leading authority is Hsu v. Commissioner of Police (1999) 2 HKCFAR 1, in which the Court of Final Appeal held that special damages must be pleaded with particularity and proved by documentary evidence. For transport costs, the claimant must show that each journey was directly attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. The legislation does not provide a fixed tariff for taxi fares or ambulance services. Instead, the court applies a reasonableness test: was the mode of transport appropriate given the claimant’s medical condition, and was the cost proportionate to the injury?

Statutory Provisions in the District Court and High Court

Section 72 of the District Court Ordinance (Cap. 336) gives the District Court jurisdiction to hear personal injury claims where the amount claimed does not exceed HK$3 million. For claims exceeding that limit, the action must be commenced in the Court of First Instance under Order 1A, Rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A). In both forums, the claimant must serve a schedule of special damages at least 28 days before trial. The schedule must itemise each transport expense, including the date, purpose, cost, and mode of transport. Failure to do so may result in the court refusing to award those costs, even if they were genuinely incurred.

Step 1: Documenting Taxi Fares as Recoverable Expenses

The Evidentiary Standard for Taxi Receipts

The court procedure is that a taxi receipt alone is insufficient. The claimant must also provide a contemporaneous diary entry or medical appointment card showing the date and time of the visit. In Chan Tai Man v. Wong Hoi Ying (HCPI 1234/2022, unreported), the Court of First Instance reduced the taxi fare claim by 40% because the claimant produced only a bundle of receipts without any supporting evidence that the journeys were to medical appointments. The court held that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, but the claimant must discharge that burden with clear documentary evidence. The best practice is to keep a transport log that records the following for each journey: date, departure point, destination, purpose (e.g., “physiotherapy at Queen Elizabeth Hospital”), taxi fare, and the name of the treating doctor.

When Taxi Fares Are Not Recoverable

The legislation provides that transport costs are not recoverable if the journey was for a purpose unrelated to the accident. For example, a claimant who takes a taxi to a social event cannot claim that cost, even if the accident made walking difficult. The court will also disallow taxi fares if the claimant could have used public transport without undue hardship. In Lee Siu Fung v. KMB (DCPI 567/2023, unreported), the District Court rejected a claim for HK$18,000 in taxi fares over six months because the claimant had not provided any medical evidence that he was unable to use the MTR. The court stated that the claimant must show that the injury caused a “real and substantial” limitation on mobility, not merely inconvenience.

Step 2: Claiming Non-Emergency Ambulance Services

When Private Ambulance Transport Is Medically Necessary

Non-emergency ambulance services are provided by private operators such as the Hong Kong St. John Ambulance and the Hong Kong Red Cross. The court procedure is that the claimant must obtain a written recommendation from a registered medical practitioner stating that ambulance transport is required due to the claimant’s physical condition. This recommendation must be specific: it should state the frequency of transfers and the reason why public transport or a taxi is unsuitable. In Wong Ka Wai v. Lee Man Chun (HCPI 2345/2021, unreported), the Court of First Instance allowed a claim for HK$45,000 in private ambulance costs for a claimant who had sustained a spinal cord injury and required a stretcher for all hospital visits. The court accepted the neurosurgeon’s letter that stated the claimant was “unable to sit upright for more than 15 minutes.”

The Fire Services Department Fee Schedule and Private Operator Costs

The Fire Services Department publishes a fee schedule for non-emergency ambulance services under the Fire Services Ordinance (Cap. 95). As of 2025, the basic fee for a non-emergency ambulance transfer within the same district is HK$1,200, with an additional HK$200 per kilometre for cross-district transfers. Private operators charge higher rates, typically HK$1,800 to HK$3,000 per trip. The court will award the lower of the two costs unless the claimant can show that the Fire Services Department was unavailable at the time of the required transfer. In Cheng Wai Ming v. Hospital Authority (DCPI 789/2022, unreported), the District Court limited the ambulance claim to the Fire Services Department rate because the claimant had not demonstrated that the public service was unavailable. The practical step is to first contact the Fire Services Department for a non-emergency ambulance booking. If the service is unavailable, obtain a written confirmation of unavailability and then use a private operator. Keep that confirmation as evidence.

Step 3: Quantifying and Presenting the Transport Claim

Calculating the Total Transport Costs for the Schedule of Special Damages

The schedule of special damages must include a summary table showing the total transport costs claimed. The table should list each month separately, with subtotals for taxi fares and ambulance services. The court procedure is that the claimant must also provide a narrative explanation of why each category of transport was necessary. For example: “From 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024, the claimant attended 24 physiotherapy sessions at the Prince of Wales Hospital. The claimant was unable to use public transport because of a fractured femur that required the use of crutches. The claimant took a taxi for each session at an average cost of HK$85 per trip, totalling HK$2,040.” The Hong Kong Judiciary’s Practice Direction 18.1 requires that the schedule be verified by an affidavit of the claimant or a person with knowledge of the facts.

Interest on Transport Costs

The legislation provides that special damages carry interest from the date of the accident to the date of trial. Under section 48 of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), the court has discretion to award interest at a rate it considers just. The standard rate for special damages in personal injury cases is 2% per annum, as set out in Lau Cheong v. HKSAR (2000) 3 HKCFAR 267. The interest is calculated on the total transport costs from the date each expense was incurred. The claimant’s solicitor should include a calculation of interest in the schedule of special damages, showing the date of each expense and the interest accrued to the date of the schedule.

Step 4: Challenging the Defendant’s Objections to Transport Costs

Common Defences and How to Address Them

Defendants in traffic accident claims frequently challenge transport costs on three grounds: (1) the transport was not medically necessary, (2) the cost was excessive, or (3) the claimant failed to mitigate the loss by using a cheaper alternative. The court procedure is that the claimant must respond to each objection with specific evidence. For medical necessity, the treating doctor’s letter is the primary evidence. For excessiveness, the claimant should obtain quotes from at least two private ambulance operators to show that the chosen operator’s rate was within the market range. For failure to mitigate, the claimant must show that the cheaper alternative was not reasonably available. In Ng Wai Lun v. Transport Department (CACV 456/2023, unreported), the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow taxi fares despite the defendant’s argument that the claimant could have taken the bus. The Court of Appeal noted that the claimant had a walking stick and the bus stop was 800 metres from his home, which the medical evidence stated was beyond his walking capacity.

Costs Consequences of an Unreasonable Transport Claim

The court has the power to disallow costs or order the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs if the transport claim is found to be exaggerated or unreasonable. Under Order 62, Rule 6 of the Rules of the High Court, the court may make a costs order that reflects the conduct of the parties. In Fok Chi Keung v. AXA General Insurance Hong Kong Limited (HCPI 3456/2022, unreported), the Court of First Instance ordered the claimant to pay 30% of the defendant’s costs from the date of the defendant’s Calderbank offer because the claimant’s transport claim was inflated by HK$12,000. The court found that the claimant had claimed for taxi fares to social events and had not disclosed that he had been using the MTR for other journeys. The practical takeaway is that the transport claim must be accurate and verifiable. Overclaiming can lead to a costs penalty that far exceeds the disputed amount.

Step 5: Post-Trial Enforcement and Future Transport Costs

Claiming Future Transport Costs as Part of the Final Award

The court may award a lump sum for future transport costs if the claimant can prove that the need for transport will continue after the trial. The court procedure is that the claimant must provide a life expectancy report and a care plan that specifies the expected frequency of medical appointments. The award is calculated using the multiplier-multiplicand method: the annual transport cost multiplied by the appropriate multiplier from the Ogden Tables (as adopted in Hong Kong in Chan Pui Ki v. Leung Kwok Wai (2012) 15 HKCFAR 369). For example, if the claimant requires 12 taxi trips per year at HK$100 per trip, the annual cost is HK$1,200. If the multiplier for a 40-year-old male is 25, the future transport award is HK$30,000. The court will discount this amount for contingencies other than mortality, typically 10-15%.

Enforcement of the Transport Costs Award

If the defendant fails to pay the transport costs awarded by the court, the claimant may enforce the judgment through the District Court or High Court Enforcement Office. The legislation provides that the judgment carries interest at the judgment rate (currently 8% per annum under the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), section 49). The claimant may also apply for a garnishee order to seize the defendant’s bank account or a charging order against the defendant’s property. The practical step is to obtain a sealed copy of the judgment and file a writ of execution with the Enforcement Office. The enforcement fee is HK$1,045 for claims up to HK$100,000 and HK$2,090 for claims above that amount, as set out in the Enforcement of Judgments (Fees) Rules (Cap. 4A, sub. leg.).

Key Takeaways

• Keep a contemporaneous transport log with receipts, medical appointment cards, and doctor’s letters for every journey related to the accident; the court will not accept reconstructed records.
• Use the Fire Services Department non-emergency ambulance service first, and obtain written confirmation of unavailability before using a private operator at higher cost.
• Include a detailed schedule of special damages with interest calculations at least 28 days before trial, verified by affidavit.
• Do not claim for transport to social events or for journeys where public transport was reasonably available; an exaggerated claim risks a costs penalty.
• For future transport costs, obtain a life expectancy report and a care plan from a registered medical practitioner to support the multiplier-multiplicand calculation.