Chong San Cho v. Ngc Hong Kong Ltd

[English Translation – 英譯本]

HCSA 59/2018

[2019] HKCFI 904

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 59 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM NO 39501 OF 2018)

______________

______________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

1.Mr Chong purchased an antique coin at an auction in Hong Kong in August 2017 in reliance on expert certification that the coin was genuine. He claims that he has since discovered the coin was a fake. He brought a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal against NGC Hong Kong Limited (“NGCHK”) in relation to the certification.

2.On 7 December 2018, the Adjudicator, however, struck out his claim on the ground that the certification was done by Numismatic Guaranty Corporation, the parent company of NGCHK, and not by NGCHK.  I shall grant Mr Chong leave to appeal, it being reasonably arguable that the decision below was erroneous in law because NGCHK never disputed it was responsible for the certification either in the defence filed, or (according to Mr Chong) at the hearing in the Tribunal.  On the contrary, in its defence it stated that it offered a service called “Appearance Review” and if it was confirmed the coin was not genuine, “it will offer a remedy as stipulated in the NGC Guarantee”; Mr Chong however declined to leave them with the coin for detailed examination. 

3.There might be commercial reasons why NGCHK did not wish to take any point that the party issuing the certification was its parent, an American corporation, instead of itself.  In any event, even if the US parent was arguably the party liable there might be a question as to whether it should be added to the present claim since the auction took place in Hong Kong where the certification was used, instead of Mr Chong’s claim being struck out without any decision on the substance. Accordingly, I grant Mr Chong leave to appeal.

4.It should be noted that, as I informed Mr Chong at the hearing, even if his present appeal succeeds in the end, it will only mean that this claim will go back to the Small Claims Tribunal for substantive determination.

The Claimant was not represented and appeared in person