21 Jul 2022
The review is dismissed because claimants failed to produce credible evidence linking the submitted invoice to their alleged losses, failed to discharge the evidential burden for quantum or for mental distress, and the tribunal properly exercised its limited s16(3) inquiry duty; therefore the HK$100 symbolic award and the original orders are legally sound.
21 Jul 2022
The review is dismissed because claimants failed to discharge the burden to prove loss or mental distress; a single post‑judgment invoice was not credible evidence to increase damages; the tribunal lawfully awarded $100 symbolic damages in the absence of reliable evidence; the statutory duty to inquire under s16(3) does not require investigation into unpleaded, unsubstantiated matters.
21 Jul 2022
The review is dismissed because the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proving actual loss or any psychiatric injury; the Tribunal correctly applied established law that a claimant must produce credible evidence of loss, properly rejected a post‑judgment receipt as proving their loss, and correctly held that s16(3) does not impose an absolute duty to inquire into alleged mental distress absent any evidential basis.
21 Jul 2022
The tribunal correctly applied the principle that claimants must prove their loss; absent credible evidence the tribunal was entitled to award nominal damages of HK$100; the statutory duty to inquire under s16(3) does not oblige the tribunal to investigate allegations of mental distress where such claims were not pleaded and there was no supporting evidence or objective basis to warrant inquiry.
23 Mar 2001
Because the retainer's object was to secure dissolution and thereby peace of mind, damages for mental distress were recoverable in contract on the facts; other heads failed for lack of causal connection or remoteness; award made for mental distress and wasted expenditure only; partners are jointly and severally liable and apportionment of contribution is Tsui 2%, Lee 6%, To 8% and Warne 84%.