KONG SHUN MINI WAREHOUSE v. HAHN SHIN MICHELINE SUCKHI

HCSA 30/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
CLAIM NO. 68482 OF 2002)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. On 1 April 2003, the Small Claims Tribunal refused the Defendant's application to set aside a default judgment that had been entered against her. The Defendant now seeks leave from this court to appeal against that decision of the Small Claims Tribunal.

2. In the proceedings below, the Claimant as the operator of a mini warehouse sued the Defendant for outstanding rentals in respect of the Defendant's belongings that had been stored in the warehouse. The Tribunal, having considered the material submitted by the Defendant, concluded that even on the Defendant's own case, there could be no dispute that she signed a written leasing agreement dated 15 December 1999 which stipulated a monthly rental fee of HK$2,500 (with discount), that her belongings had been stored at the warehouse for 34 months up to the time of the filing of the claim, and that she had only paid HK$14,000. The Tribunal concluded that from whatever angle, the Defendant was owing outstanding rentals in respect of the storage of her belongings.

3. In the exercise of its discretion, the Tribunal refused to set aside the default judgment, which the Tribunal had found to be a regular one. Having read the judgment and considered the case of the Defendant, I can really find no fault with the Tribunal's decision. The Defendant has expressed before me the concern that her belongings may have been already sold by the Claimant, but according to the judgment, the Defendant had once summoned the police to the warehouse making a similar complaint but the police officer who went to the warehouse confirmed that the Defendant's belongings had not been touched by the Claimant.

4. Now, of course, the Defendant may still have her own suspicion, but mere suspicion is not sufficient. Moreover, there is really nothing to stop the Defendant from paying up the outstanding judgment sum and demanding for the return of her belongings. And if the Claimant has any difficulty in returning her belongings or if any of her belongings is found to have been damaged during storage, the Defendant can certainly make a claim against the Claimant. At the moment, there is really nothing to substantiate the Defendant's fear.

5. Moreover, as I said, the decision below consisted of an exercise of discretion on the part of the Tribunal. In the absence of any material error in the process, I really cannot see any ground for appealing against the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal below.

6. For all these reasons, I refuse leave to appeal. I make no order as to the costs.