CATERINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAU SUET YUET t/a KANTIME LEATHER WATCH STRAP MFY

HCSA 56/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM NO. 69803 OF 2003)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

1.  Counsel has exhausted everything that can be legitimately said on behalf of the Defendant, who is applying for leave to appeal from an adverse judgment given by the Small Claims Tribunal.

2.  According to section 28 of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, leave to appeal may only be granted on a ground involving a question of law alone, there being no question in the present case of the Tribunal acting outside its own jurisdiction, that being the other statutory ground of appeal. 

3.  It is quite unnecessary to recite the grounds of appeal relied on by the Defendant.  They have been set out in the application for leave as well as counsel’s written submission. 

4.  Nor is it necessary to deal with each and every ground of appeal.  Suffice it to say that despite counsel’s effort, I do not see the grounds as raising any question of law at all.  They are all concerned with factual matters, evidence and findings.  The grounds are all covered by the findings made by the Tribunal as clarified by it after the review hearing.  It is not enough to say that the Tribunal has not sufficiently considered a particular evidential aspect of the case; nor is it sufficient to raise a question of law by complaining that there was no documentary evidence to support a particular finding, so long as there was some evidence before the Tribunal which could enable the Tribunal to come to the particular finding of fact.   

5.  Having considered the grounds of appeal relied on as well as the submission of counsel, I fail to see any error of law involved in the findings made by the Tribunal.

6.  Counsel has also sought to raise one or two legal arguments in relation to quantum and the recoverability of some items of loss.  Suffice it to say that I do not find the arguments arguable at all.  The arguments are, in any event, fact-sensitive and are covered by the findings of fact made by the Tribunal. 

7.  One has to bear in mind that in a sale of goods situation where compensation sought by a sub-buyer or end-user of goods has been paid by a buyer, the amount of compensation that may be recovered by way of damages by him from his supplier of the goods is not limited to what would be strictly, as a matter of law, recoverable by way of damages by the sub-buyer or end-user from the buyer if he had been sued to judgment.  The compensation payable and recoverable may include sums that have been paid by the buyer as a matter of commercial reality so long as what have been paid were paid reasonably.  That again is a question of fact and, on the facts of the present case, all those questions have been covered quite adequately by the findings made by the Tribunal. 

8.  So, for all those reasons, the application for leave is refused with no order as to costs.