ANNA CHUNG LAI YUNG v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

___________________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. :

1. The Applicant brought proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunal for damages for personal injuries. Her allegation is that she was injured when standing in the street by a collapsing street sign which it is apparently common ground was originally erected by a Government body. The Applicant limits her claim to $5,000 which is the maximum jurisdiction in civil proceedings of the Small Claims Tribunal. Of his own motion the Adjudicator decided to transfer this case under s.7 of the Ordinance to the District Court. The reasons were recorded and we now have them, although they were not filed as part of the appeal record.

2. The Adjudicator remarked that the Defence to the Claim would be one of non-feasance. He said that the claim would involve the hearing of expert evidence - and especially medical evidence - and, further that the legal issues were "far from simple". He said that it was apparent that "legal argument by both sides was anticipated and that legal representation would be necessary in the interest of the parties concerned". (It may not have been made clear to him, but it has been made clear to us, that wherever the matter is tried the claimant will not be professionally represented, and we are told that the expert medical evidence will probably be confined to medical reports. )

3. This matter comes before us under s.27 of the Ordinance on review of the decision to transfer: it is not an appeal and we are required to exercise our own discretion entirely. In my view there is nothing extraordinary about this case which makes it unsuitable for trial in the Small Claims Tribunal. The Applicant has deliberately limited her claim to bring it within that Tribunal's jurisdiction and, perhaps being aware of the difficulties which she faces, she wishes it to be heard in a tribunal where costs cannot be awarded and I see no reason why the Tribunal, which is staffed by professional Adjudicators, should not be an entirely proper tribunal for the hearing of this small matter. I therefore would reverse the decision of the Adjudicator and direct that the matter be heard in the Small Claims Tribunal.

Cons, J. A.:

4. I agree with my Lord that it seems to me a most suitable case for trial in the Small Claims Tribunal in the circumstances and I, too, would remit it back to that Tribunal with directions that it be heard before another Adjudicator.

Fuad, J. A.:

5. I agree with my Lords and with the order propsoed. I would simply wish to add my congratulations to Miss Chung for her admirable written submissions of which many a lawyer would be proud.

25th October 1985