HOSPITAL AUTHORITY v. ARULRAJ DAVID THYNES

HCSA 23/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 23 OF 2025

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM NO 11754 OF 2023)

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction and Background

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Small Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by Mr Thynes (“the Applicant”). The Applicant was the Defendant in the proceedings before the Tribunal and the Claimant therein was the Hospital Authority (“HA”).

2.  HA claimed that the Applicant used the services of the Accident and Emergency Department (“the Services”) at Tuen Mun Hospital (“the Hospital”) on 1 August 2022 and had not paid the medical bill amounting to HK$1,415.

3.  The Applicant denied that he attended the Hospital on 1 August 2022 although he did visit the Hospital for eye injury on 25 September 2022 and 1 October 2022.

4.  On 6 August 2025, following a trial, judgment was entered in favour of HA and the Applicant was ordered inter alia to pay HK$1,415 to HA with post-judgment interest on the judgment sum but with no order as to costs (“the Order”).

5.  I have carefully considered the Reasons for Decision dated 29 September 2025 (“the Reasons”) of the Deputy Adjudicator. Essentially, the Deputy Adjudicator found that there was overwhelming evidence showing that the Applicant attended the Hospital and used the Services on 1 August 2022. He accepted all the evidence presented by HA including the testimonies given by HA’s witnesses, placing significant weight on the contemporaneous documents. Conversely, he held that the Applicant’s evidence was not believable given the discrepancies in his witness statements and testimony in court, and that the Applicant had not provided any documents, receipts or records in support of his case. He did not accept the Applicant’s assertion that HA had fabricated documents and the different departments in the Hospital had made mistakes regarding the date.

6.  On 8 August 2025, the Applicant applied for leave to appeal against the Order. The stated grounds are that HA’s case “is not true”, he needs a “re-hearing of this case” and that “the case hearing time never care my voice”.

7.  The Applicant appeared at the hearing before me not legally represented but assisted by an interpreter. I confirmed with him the above paragraph were his grounds for seeking leave to appeal against the Order. I also clarified with him what he meant by “the case hearing time never care my voice”. He explained that by that, he meant that during the trial on 6 August 2025 he wished to say certain things but was told he can say it later but ended up he was not given the opportunity to say it. After I probed with the Applicant on what it was that he wished to say but was not able to, in gist, he told me that he wanted to further explain why he had not attended the Hospital on 1 August 2022 and should have been given time to orally explain this but was prevented from doing so by the Deputy Adjudicator. However, he accepted that he did not have any documentary or written evidence to support his case he was not at the Hospital on 1 August 2022 but nonetheless wished to explain orally why he was not there and should not be asked to pay the bill for 1 August 2022 as it was the wrong bill.

Discussion

8.  Section 28 of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Cap. 338 (“Ordinance”) provides:

(1)  Any party who is aggrieved by a decision of the tribunal -

(a)  on any ground involving a question of law alone; or

(b)  on the ground that the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal,

may apply to the Court of First Instance for leave to appeal and the Court of First Instance may grant such leave if it thinks fit.

9.  Since the scope of appeal from the Tribunal to this court is limited to questions of law, the Applicant cannot seek leave to appeal against the Tribunal’s findings of fact or decision on the credibility of witnesses merely by contending that the Tribunal was wrong, for that would be to allege no more than an error of fact. He has to make out a ground that raises a question of law or alleges an error of law. See: Liu Chung Man v Midland Realty International Ltd. (Unrep) HCSA 42/2015, 9 September 2015, per G Lam J (as he then was) at §12.

10.  As for where a decision of fact can be quashed for errors of law, this requires the appellate court to find the finding is perverse or irrational or where if there was no evidence to support it: see ibid at §§12-13.

11.  Having considered the Applicant’s submissions and the Reasons, I fail to see any question of law raised such that there is any basis to grant leave to appeal.

12.  In any event, I do not consider any basis to challenge the Deputy Adjudicator’s factual findings. Plainly, the Deputy Adjudicator’s acceptance of HA’s case was based on his preference of the evidence of HA’s witnesses (which were supported by contemporaneous documents) over the Applicant’s. The following observations made by Godfrey JA in Tang Kwok Ming v Daxprofit Scaffolding Ltd [1999] 1 HKC 657 applied by Mimmie Chan J in Lee Keet Ying v MTR Corporation Limited [2024] HKCFI 3421 at §14 to an application for leave to appeal under s.28 of the Ordinance are apposite:

“This court will not usurp the function of the trial judge, ie to find the facts. It will certainly not disturb his findings of primary fact where these are based on the credibility of the witnesses or the preference of the evidence of one witness for that of another…

It is important for counsel and solicitors (and for the legal aid authorities) to remember the very limited extent to which this court will interfere in a case in which the appellant seeks to dispute the judge’s findings of fact. … It is not enough to show there is little evidence to support the judge’s findings, or that it was ‘contrary to the weight of the evidence.’ The weight of the evidence is a matter for the trial judge. It does not matter how many witnesses say one thing, and how few say the contrary. The judge is perfectly entitled to prefer the evidence of the few to that of the many.”

13.  Insofar the Applicant submitted that he was prevented to give oral evidence or make submissions at the trial, there is no evidence in support of this bare allegation. The Reasons had referred to the Applicant’s court testimony (see §§17-18). Also from the application form for payment to the interpreter who assisted the Applicant at the trial, it can be gleaned that interpretation services was provided from 9:15am to 7:25pm on 6 August 2025. The Applicant confirmed that the trial did take place between 9:15am to 7:25pm so there could be no complaint of insufficient time for the Applicant’s case to be heard.

14.  Besides, given that the Deputy Adjudicator held that he would place significant weight on the contemporaneous document, which he plainly was entitled to do so, and the Applicant confirmed that he had no documentary evidence in support of his case, the fact that the Applicant was prevented from making further oral explanations on why he was not at the Hospital on 1 August 2022 (when his case had been set out in his witness statements and was clearly considered: see the Reasons, §§4 and 10), this complaint, even if true, is unarguable and unmeritorious as it can advance his case no further.

15.  Accordingly, for the above reasons, I will dismiss this application for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.