CHAN TSZ CHUN v. ZHANG JINGEN

CHAN TSZ CHUN v. ZHANG JINGEN

The court held the impugned determinations were primarily factual matters of causation and costs within the Deputy Adjudicator's discretion; the Deputy Adjudicator did not err in principle, his findings were supported by evidence and common sense, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable ground or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 651
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Chan Tsz Chun; Respondent / Defendant: Zhang Jingen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 January 2026
Case Number
HCSA44/2025
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeals (heard Together) / Application for Leave to Appeal (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deposit Refund, Damages for Denial of Access, Costs and Proportionality, Standard of Review on Appeals From Small Claims Tribunal, Causation, Ordinary Wear and Tear
Source Language
en
Landlord and Tenant Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Evidence Law Deposit Refund Damages for Denial of Access Costs and Proportionality +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Tsz Chun

Appellant / Claimant

Zhang Jingen

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeals (heard Together) / Application for Leave to Appeal (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the additional moving expenses of HK$5,500 were caused by the landlord's deactivation of access cards
  2. 2 Whether the Deputy Adjudicator determined costs without affording the Claimant an opportunity to be heard (procedural fairness)
  3. 3 Whether factual findings of the Small Claims Tribunal can be impugned on appeal under s28 Cap 338

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the impugned determinations were primarily factual matters of causation and costs within the Deputy Adjudicator's discretion; the Deputy Adjudicator did not err in principle, his findings were supported by evidence and common sense, and the Claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable ground or reasonable prospect of success for appeal under s28 Cap 338, therefore leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs