WOO WAN MAN SUSANA v. SUNFLOWER TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

WOO WAN MAN SUSANA v. SUNFLOWER TRAVEL SERVICE LTD

Leave refused because the adjudicator's primary findings were factual and lawful: no evidence existed that the defendant knew of country-specific stricter requirements or of the non-immigration stamps; claimant did not request a passport check; the conditions for implying a contractual Duty to Advise were not met; s5 SSITO did not impose the asserted proactive advisory duty on these facts; the adjudicator's costs exercise was within discretion. No error of law shown and no prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 339
Parties
Claimant (appellant): Woo Wan Man Susana; Defendant (respondent): Sunflower Travel Service Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Case Number
HCSA35/2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (determination)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; claimant's application dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms in Contract, Duty to Advise, Supply of Services (implied Terms) Ordinance Cap 457 S5, Standard of Care in Provision of Services, Costs Awards Under Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Tort (negligence) Consumer Law Procedural Law Immigration Related Travel Regulation Implied Terms in Contract Duty to Advise Supply of Services (implied Terms) Ordinance Cap 457 S5 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Woo Wan Man Susana

Claimant (appellant)

Sunflower Travel Service Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal (determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a travel agent owes a duty to advise a customer of risk of refusal of boarding/entry due to non-immigration souvenir stamps in passport
  2. 2 Whether an implied term (Duty to Advise) can be read into the contract between traveller and travel agent
  3. 3 Whether s5 SSITO (implied term as to reasonable care and skill) imposes the asserted Duty to Advise in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the adjudicator's primary findings were factual and lawful: no evidence existed that the defendant knew of country-specific stricter requirements or of the non-immigration stamps; claimant did not request a passport check; the conditions for implying a contractual Duty to Advise were not met; s5 SSITO did not impose the asserted proactive advisory duty on these facts; the adjudicator's costs exercise was within discretion. No error of law shown and no prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; claimant's application dismissed