THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET 對 蘇洪新

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET 對 蘇洪新

Although the amended particulars contained an error about the claim period, the tribunal’s review judgment correctly identified the claim period and affirmed that the total sum of $42,120.40 represented management fees up to February 2014; there was no legal or jurisdictional error to justify allowing the appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF TUNG FAT BUILDING, BLOCK C, KAM PING STREET 對 蘇洪新
Parties
Respondent (claimant): The Incorporated Owners of Tung Fat Building, Block C, Kam Ping Street; Appellant (defendant): So Hung Sun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 August 2016
Case Number
HCSA70/2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to High Court (appeal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Management Fees, Amendment of Claim, Misleading the Tribunal, Appealability of Factual Findings, Small Claims Procedure
Source Language
CH
Civil Procedure Property Law Debt Recovery Tribunal Appeals Building Management Management Fees Amendment of Claim Misleading the Tribunal +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Incorporated Owners of Tung Fat Building, Block C, Kam Ping Street

Respondent (claimant)

So Hung Sun

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to High Court (appeal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant misled the Small Claims Tribunal resulting in an incorrect judgment amount
  2. 2 Whether the claimant improperly amended the particulars to include management fees beyond the permitted claim period
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's review decision correctly stated the claim period and total owed and whether any legal error arose justifying appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

Although the amended particulars contained an error about the claim period, the tribunal’s review judgment correctly identified the claim period and affirmed that the total sum of $42,120.40 represented management fees up to February 2014; there was no legal or jurisdictional error to justify allowing the appeal, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs