Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Small claims tribunal procedure

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2023

MA KWOK MING v. JONES LANG LASALLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA30/2020

The adjudicator's decision on liability was set aside and the five claims remitted because he failed to consider a relevant factor (the burst B1 pipe) affecting causation and failed to discharge the statutory duty to alert the defendant to the likely need for expert evidence under s16(3), causing injustice; however the adjudicator was entitled to rely on the defendant's internal guidelines to find that sandbags/water barriers would likely have been effective and that the Act of God defence did not prevail absent evidence to the contrary.
29 Apr 2022

有關何永佳及另一人的事宜 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1277
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL188/2022

Permission was refused because the application failed the reasonable-arguability threshold: the papers did not identify the correct maker of the impugned order (wrong or unidentified respondent) and did not establish why statutory remedies under the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance should be displaced by judicial review.
9 Feb 2018

LEUNG CHUNG LAN LORRAINE v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 257
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA43/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant raised no question of law or jurisdictional issue; the dispute turned on factual and credibility findings by the Deputy Adjudicator which the court may not re-open under ss.28-29 of Cap.338, and therefore the court had no power to grant leave.
6 Jun 2017

采建有限公司對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人

Citation

采建有限公司對 YAN KWOK CHO及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA15/2017

The tribunal’s findings that the claimant provided management services during the relevant period, that the defendants accepted and benefited from those services without payment, and that the defendants failed to establish a change of position or to disprove the claimant’s accounts justified recovery on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract grounds; the rehearing did not misapply the law nor contravene the earlier High Court directions, so leave to appeal is refused.
31 Oct 2011

YU WING KEI v. CHAN TAK KWONG

Citation

YU WING KEI v. CHAN TAK KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA13/2011

The court held that costs should follow the event: the Defendant was the overall winner because the net monetary result required the Claimant to pay the Defendant; there was no finding the Defendant acted improperly or caused excessive costs; on a fresh exercise of discretion the Defendant was awarded 70% of assessed costs ($21,800) = $15,260 and was entitled to costs of the appeal.
21 Apr 2011

W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD

Citation

W. M. INDUSTRIAL (K.C.C.) LTD v. ADVANCE PLAN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA37/2010

There was no arguable point of law for the grant of leave to appeal because the learned adjudicator made findings of fact (including admission of leakage and inference of causation) which cannot be challenged on appeal under s28 Cap.338; the matters raised by APL were attacks on factual findings or invited reassessment of evidence rather than points of law, therefore the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 Nov 1999

KAMSHAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CHAN TUNG MAN

Citation

KAMSHAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CHAN TUNG MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/1999

The court made the order nisi absolute but adjusted the costs order to reflect that the landlord's successful claim for $2,500, had it been pursued in the Small Claims Tribunal, would have exposed the landlord to only minimal expense; accordingly $500 is to be deducted from the sum payable by the landlord to the tenant in respect of the tenant's costs.
27 Mar 1997

LEUNG MOON CHEUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Others

Citation

LEUNG MOON CHEUNG v. ATTORNEY GENERAL and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA4/1997

The review was dismissed because the applicant failed to show the Adjudicator's exercise of discretion was wrong and, critically, the application was out of time under section 27 so the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the review.
10 Jun 1987

FAIRVIEW PARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. LEE YUEN YAU

Citation

FAIRVIEW PARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. LEE YUEN YAU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP703/1987

Provisional leave to appeal was granted because the points on whether legal costs can be recovered as damages under the deed and whether the English rule applies without a prior adjudication on costs were arguable and raised issues of general public importance; the Court therefore directed provisional procedural steps rather than dismissing the application.
3 Apr 1987

LEE YUEN YAU v. FAIRVIEW PARK PRORERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED

Citation

LEE YUEN YAU v. FAIRVIEW PARK PRORERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA4/1987

Legal fees incurred by the management company are not recoverable as damages under paragraph 1(k) of the Third Schedule to the Deed of Mutual Covenants; consequently the collection charge and Small Claims costs that depended on that award could not stand and the Adjudicator's award was set aside.