Wu Chi Sing v. Chau Li Man and Another

HCSA000056/1993

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

1993, No. 56
Small Claims Appeal

_________________

Date of hearing: 25 February 1994

Date of delivery: 25 February 1994

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

Litton, J.A.:

1. This is an appeal brought under Section 28(1) of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance. The function of this court on such an appeal is limited. I have power to interfere only if (a) there is a question of law involved in the appeal or (b) the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal. It is not my function as a judge of the High Court to review the evidence given in the Small Claims Tribunal. Far less is it my function to allocate responsibility for the accident.

2. The appeal is against the finding of the Small Claims Tribunal whereby a claim for damages brought by the respondent was upheld. The presiding officer awarded damages in the sum of $15,000.

3. The matter arose from a traffic accident that occurred on 16 April 1992. The respondent was driving along Tai Po Road in a private car AF580 near its junction with Poplar Street. There was a vehicle stopped in the lane in which AF580 was travelling. To avoid that vehicle AF580 had to swerve out into the next lane and was hit from behind by the taxi driven by the appellant. AF580 was damaged on the nearside rear. It was the responsibility of the Small Claims Tribunal to weigh the evidence, to consider who was telling the truth and to determine where responsibility for the accident lie. There was a conflict in the testimony given by the driver of AF580 and his passenger which the presiding officer took into account. He also took into account the fact that the appellant was acquitted of careless driving in the Magistrates Court.

4. In my judgment there is no question of law and no possibility of a question of law arising on this appeal. Whilst the presiding officer did not refer specifically to the question of contributory negligence, this was plainly something he bore in mind, since his sole function was to determine responsibility for the accident. It is not surprising from what I can see of the facts that he determined that the whole responsibility for the accident fell on the appellant. In these circumstances this appeal is dismissed.

Representation:

Appellant in person

Respondent in person