Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Jurisdiction of small claims tribunal

Legal area

Court

14 Jan 2026

秦頌德對健威營造有限公司

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 289
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA24/2025

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the claimant's asserted grounds were either outside the Small Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction (copyright claims; claims arising from the employment contract which fall within the Labour Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction) or were factual credibility and evidential issues properly decided by the adjudicator for which leave to appeal will not be granted; the claimant failed to show a question of law or a jurisdictional error sufficient to obtain leave.
20 Dec 2024

李靜對趙、司徒、鄭律師事務所及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1181
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP324/2023

The application for permission to appeal is refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling reason: her core claims are conclusively precluded by earlier final judgments (so are unarguable), her Limitation Ordinance argument is misconceived, the legal fees claim is for Small Claims Tribunal jurisdiction, and there is no basis to disturb the costs assessment; accordingly the appeal permission was properly denied and costs ordered against her.
16 Oct 2024

連麗英對張家煌

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2731
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA53/2024

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant raised no arguable legal question: the disputed issues were factual credibility findings supported by the tribunal's assessment of witness testimony and documents, the applicant failed to produce material documents despite opportunities, and the applicant could not show the tribunal's decision was unsupported or irrational.
20 Sept 2024

ZHANG YING 對 CHAN KIN PUI PHOEBE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2408
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA30/2024

The court held the adjudicator did not commit any legal error in applying established authorities that deposits paid at the lease outset may be forfeited on tenant breach and that equitable relief is limited to unconscionable cases; the adjudicator's factual findings were supported by evidence, so leave to appeal was rightly refused.
26 Apr 2024

NG KWOK MING RICMAN v. LI YIN YEE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1165
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA16/2024

Leave to appeal was granted because the claimant established an arguable point of law that the Deputy Adjudicator may have erred in holding the claim fell within Schedule 1(f) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance Cap 338; the court did not decide the merits but confined the leave to the specific legal question whether the claim falls within Schedule 1(f).
21 May 2020

WHAMPO GARDEN MANAGEMENT LTD 對 SONO ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 346
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA57/2018

The High Court held that the invitation to tender was not an offer; the bidder's submitted tender constituted the offer accepted by the claimant's work order, the Small Claims Tribunal's factual finding that the defendant/applicant failed to procure materials complying with the contractual and statutory requirements and therefore breached the contract was not contested on any arguable point of law, and consequently there was no proper legal ground to grant leave under s28, so the application for leave to appeal was refused.
23 Jan 2020

孔兄華及另一人對屯門慧豐園業主立案法團及另一人

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA4/2020

The transfer order was correct and must stand because the claimant sought a mandatory repair order that exceeds the Small Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction; therefore the matter must be heard by the District Court which can grant the requested non‑monetary relief. The claimant's subsequent request to cancel the transfer did not change the jurisdictional fact and was dismissed.
10 Dec 2019

MAK KAM CHIU v. 富明閣業主立案法團

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1373
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP196/2019

The SCT adjudicator decided as part of the reasons for dismissing the applicant's counterclaim that the assignment plan only showed location and did not specify dimensions, thereby adjudicating the delineation issue; issue estoppel therefore bars the Lands Tribunal claim and, independently, the claim constituted a Henderson v Henderson type abuse by seeking to re-litigate and to rely on evidence that could have been adduced earlier; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded.
28 Nov 2019

田路對任焯明及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2858
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA38/2019

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the tribunal correctly applied the legal principle that police complaint investigations and operational decisions do not ordinarily give rise to a civil duty of care to complainants or third parties, the appellant lacked standing to advance her husband's claim, and the claim was baseless and properly dismissed under s25 of the Small Claims Tribunals Ordinance; no legal error or excess of jurisdiction under s28(1) was shown to justify leave to appeal.
5 Aug 2019

MAK KAM CHIU v. 富明閣業主立案法團

Citation

[2019] HKLdT 43
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM204/2017

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds had no reasonable prospects of success: the tribunal correctly applied issue estoppel; the Small Claims Tribunal lawfully had jurisdiction over the monetary counterclaim for loss of rental income; the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances making application of issue estoppel unjust; and the application was an abuse of process. Costs were ordered against the applicant.