Centaline Property Agency Ltd v. Feng Zhifan

HCSA 43/2019

[2020] HKCFI 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 43 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

CLAIM NO 34057 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is the Defendant’s application for leave to appeal against the Review Decision of the Small Claims Tribunal made on 2 December 2019.  The written Review Decision was dated 18 December 2019, which was of the same date as the Reasons for Decision in these matters.

2.The claim against the Defendant was based on a dishonoured cheque which was issued by him to the Claimant for its service rendered in respect of a Tenancy Agreement where the Defendant was the tenant.

3.Although the Form 9 filed by the Defendant suggests that there are grounds of appeal based on the jurisdictional issue, it is clear from the annexure (“Annex”) to the document that there is no such challenge.

4.Pursuant to s.28 of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance, Cap 338, an application for leave to appeal must be based on question(s) of law (aside from any challenge on jurisdiction).  The purported points of law advanced by the Defendant in his application do not constitute any proper point of law and are, in any event, devoid of merits. 

5.With the possible exception of para 4 (references to paragraphs are references to paragraphs of the Annex), all of the arguments contained in the Annex were raised both at the hearing on 18 October 2019 and during the Review.  They were factual arguments and rejected by the Tribunal with reasons. 

6.As regards para 4, it was suggested that, in accordance with clause 2 of Schedule 3 to the Agency Agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant, the payment of commission to the Claimant should be refunded to the tenant when the Tenancy Agreement failed to take effect through no fault of the tenant.  However, the Tribunal had found that the Tenancy Agreement was terminated by the Landlord because the Defendant’s cheque given for the payment of deposit and rent of the first month was also dishonoured. Thus, the Defendant’s contention is not supported by the facts and is wholly unmeritorious.

7.For these reasons, this application is rejected.

The Defendant appeared in person