TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

HCSA 19 to 28/2024

(Heard Together)

[2024] HKCFI 1134

HCSA 19/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 19 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 40286 OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 20/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 20 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 40287  OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 21/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 21 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 40288  OF 2022)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 22/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 22 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 40291  OF 2022)

________________________

HCSA 23/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 23 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 3223  OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 24/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 24 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 3224  OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 25/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 25 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 3225  OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 26/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 26 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 7896  OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 27/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 27 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 7897  OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

HCSA 28/2024

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 28 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO 7898  OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1.  Between 16 December 2022 and 1 March 2023, the applicant altogether started 10 actions in the Small Claims Tribunal against the respondent (collectively “the Small Claims Actions”).

2.  On 28 February 2023, the respondent commenced an action in the District Court against the applicant (“the District Court Action”).

3.  On 21 March 2024, Deputy Adjudicator Ms Tiffany Chan (“the Adjudicator”)  acceded to the application of the respondent despite the opposition of the applicant and made an order that the Small Claims Actions be transferred to the District Court altogether with cost be reserved and to be determined by the District Court (“the Order”)  together with the District Court Action.

4.  The applicant now applies to this court to for a review of the Order pursuant to section 27 of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Cap.338 (“the Ordinance”).

Background Facts

5.  The Adjudicator handed down her “Reasons for Decision” dated 2 April 2024 and it succinctly outlined the background facts concerning the Small Claims Actions and the District Court Action. The following account is mostly taken from the Reasons for Decision.

6.  The applicant operates his sole-proprietorship business in construction and renovation works trading as Online Workshop.

7.  The respondent is an interior design consultant. The applicant and the respondent had worked together on different projects at various locations in Hong Kong. The respondent instructed the applicant to provide construction and renovation services for its clients and the respondent paid the applicant for such services usually in tranches.   

8.  The applicant’s claims in the Small Claims Actions concern 6 projects. The applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to settle the outstanding charges for the construction works completed by the applicant in respect of the 6 projects on the order of the respondent.

9.  The 6 projects include Lobster Bay Project, Harbourfront Landmark Project, La Salle Project, 89 Che Keng Tuk Road Project, Central Peak Project and 87 Che Keng Tuk Road Project.

10.  In the District Court Action, the respondent claims against the applicant for damages for breach of contract in respect of 8 projects. 5 of them are featured in the Small Claims Actions. The 3 additional new projects are Travistock Project, Enterprise Square Project and Larvotto Project.

11.  On 15 February 2024, the respondent obtained an interlocutory judgment against the applicant in the District Court Action on account of the applicant’s default in failing his defence. Quantum of damages is to be assessed. The applicant has indicated that he would apply to set aside the default judgment and the parties agree that the respondent’s application for a transfer should be dealt with on the basis that the District Court Action is ongoing.

Applicable Legal Principles

12.  Section 7 of the Ordinance provides,

“The tribunal may at any stage of proceedings in the tribunal, either of its own motion or upon the application of any party, transfer the proceedings to the Board, the Labour Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal, the District Court or the Court of First Instance, whereupon the practice and procedure of the Board, the Labour Tribunal, the Lands Tribunal, the District Court or the Court of First Instance, as the case may be, shall apply.”

13.  In Ho Siu Mei v Solution House Ltd, HCSA 5/1997 (unreported, 16.4.1997), Godfrey JA explained that the intention of the legislature in the constitution of the Small Claims Tribunal “was to provide a procedure for the speedy and inexpensive resolution of small claims. The cost of court proceedings, and the time that it takes to resolve them, are a deterrence to the prosecution of small claims”.

14.  Godfrey JA went on to explain that there has to be some good and sufficient reason for a transfer of a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal to the District Court. The judge suggested that only where it is necessary in the interest of justice will an order for transfer be justified.

15.  In Leung Muk Lan v Country Club Publishing Co Ltd., HCMP 4851/1998 (unreported, 13.10.1998), Liu JA in upholding the Acting Principal Adjudicator of the Small Claims Tribunal’s decision to order a transfer of the applicant’s claim to the Court of First Instance, held that in order to avoid duplicating court proceedings, it would appear that various disputes between the applicant and the defendant company should best be resolved all in one court and this provided material upon which the Acting Principal Adjudicator could properly exercise his discretion to transfer.

16.  On the other hand, Godfrey JA in Ho Siu Mei pointed out that section 27 of the Ordinance conferred upon the court a power of review of the tribunal’s decision. This power enables the court to look at the whole matter afresh and to decide whether or not the power conferred on the tribunal under section 7 ought in the particular case to have been excised in favour of a transfer. The Court of Appeal went on to consider whether the reasons given by the adjudicator were indeed good and sufficient for the tribunal’s decision to make a transfer order.

Reasons for Transfer

17.  In her “Reasons for Decision”, the Adjudicator carefully examined the nature of the Small Claims Actions and the District Court Action and opined that a transfer order would avoid duplicating court proceedings so that the various disputes between the parties can be resolved in one court in one go. The Adjudicator set out the following three reasons for her decision:

(1)  The overlapping issues and matters between the Small Claims Actions and the District Court Action, particularly the projects in common in the two proceedings;

(2)  The bulk of the defence of the respondent to the Small Claims Actions being essentially one of set-off against the claim in the District Court Action; and

(3)  The identity of parties in the Small Claims Actions and the District Court Action and the similarity of witnesses to be involved in the two sets of proceedings.

18.  The applicant is unable to point out any invalidity of these reasons. He merely asserted that he could not afford to hire lawyers to prosecute his Small Claims Actions in the District Court. Obviously this is irrelevant. The applicant can still opt to act in person in both the Small Claims Actions and the District Court Action.

19. I am in entire agreement with the Adjudicator. The three reasons given by her are undoubtedly good and sufficient to justify a transfer of the Small Claims Actions to the District Court so that they could be resolved together with the District Court Action. In the circumstances of the present case, duplicity of court proceedings should be avoided.

Conclusion

20.  To conclude, the decision of the Adjudicator is unassailable and is well supported by valid reasons. This court would accordingly confirm her decision on this review under section 27 of the Ordinance and the Order do stand.

21.  The applicant has no reason to apply for this review. He should pay the costs of the respondent forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed.