李希露 對 TSO WAI ON及另二人

李希露 對 TSO WAI ON及另二人

The application for leave was refused because the Tribunal's factual findings on causation and credibility were supported by documentary and oral evidence, there was no legal error in accepting the respondents' evidence or in refusing to reopen the hearing, and the appellant failed to identify an arguable question...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2266
Parties
Applicant (appellant): 李希露; First Defendant: Tso Wai On; Second Defendant: Tang Sung Wai; Third Defendant: Tang Lo
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 September 2023
Case Number
HCSA13/2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Leakage Damage, Evidence, Expert Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Credibility Findings, Small Claims Procedure
Source Language
ch
Civil Property Damage Procedural Law Leakage Damage Evidence Expert Evidence Leave to Appeal Credibility Findings +1 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

李希露

Applicant (appellant)

Tso Wai On

First Defendant

Tang Sung Wai

Second Defendant

Tang Lo

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal / Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Small Claims Tribunal erred in refusing further damages for post‑repair leakage
  2. 2 Whether the trial was procedurally unfair because the respondents did not call an expert
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's factual findings on causation and credibility were vitiated by legal error

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was refused because the Tribunal's factual findings on causation and credibility were supported by documentary and oral evidence, there was no legal error in accepting the respondents' evidence or in refusing to reopen the hearing, and the appellant failed to identify an arguable question of law or jurisdictional error entitling to leave under ss.28–29 of the Small Claims Tribunals Ordinance.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application dismissed

Orders

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