Tsoi Siu Fui v. Christine Lau

HCSA000013/1979

Coram: Roberts, C.J., Leonard & Li, JJ.

Date of Judgment: 30 November 1979

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

Li, J.:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the award and order by the Adjudicator of the Small Claims Tribunal dated the 24th October, 1979 in relation to a claim filed by one Christine Lau (Respondent) against TSOI Siu-Fui (Applicant) for $2,000.

Facts of the case

2. The Respondent was a tenant of the Applicant of a room at 48A Macdonnell Road, 2nd Floor, as from the 15th October, 1978 at a rent of $800 per month. The respondent paid one month's rent in advance and one month's rent as deposit. The term of the tenancy agreement was such that either party had to give one month's notice to terminate the tenancy. On or before the 30th June, 1979 the Respondent went for a holiday. She advertised for a sub-tenant without the consent of the Applicant. The Applicant rightly rejected the sub-tenant.

3. The Respondent, on her return on the 14th July, 1979 had a dispute with the Applicant over the sub-letting where upon the Respondent removed out of her room all her belongings without notice. However, she kept the keys to her premises. The Applicant was obliged to change a new lock to the front door for security purposes.

4. On these facts the Respondent claimed before the Adjudicator $2,000 representing

5. The Applicant filed a defence and counterclaim for $1,240. In so doing the Applicant did not dispute that a sum of $1,200 being refundable to the Respondent. He counterclaimed, however, a sum of $1,500 - for redecorating the damage to the wall of the room let to the Respondent - $190 for installation of a new lighting system and $750 for the front door lock. These came to a total of $2,440. After setting off $1,200 for the refund, the Applicant counterclaimed the balance of $2,440, i.e. $1,240.

Finding by the Adjudicator

6. Having heard the parties the Adjudicator came to the conclusion that the Respondent was sub-letting without consent and that, in the circumstances, the tenancy was terminated on or before the 15th July, 1979. As a result he adjudicated that the sum of $1,200, a sum which the Applicant allowed in his counterclaim, should be returned to the Claimant. He proceeded then to deal with the counterclaim. He found that the $1,500 for the damaged wall was not recoverable on the ground that it was done by the Applicant voluntarily before the beginning of the tenancy at the Respondent's request and expense. In any way the damage could be attributed to general wear and tear. He found that the lightings were changed without the Applicant's objection. The $750 for the lock was excessive. The Adjudicator awarded $100 to the Applicant for the new lock.

7. The Applicant's reason is that the Adjudicator did not take into consideration the Claimant lied, that the inconvenience caused by the breach of contract and that the $100 for the new lock is too low. Having regard to the record of proceedings it is evident that the Adjudicator did take into consideration the breach of contract. Hence he deducted $800 from the Respondent's claim of $2,000. Indeed $1,200 was allowed by the Applicant.

8. The Adjudicator did not admit the applicant's counterclaim for $1,500 for which no particulars had been given. In any way the Adjudicator found this to be of general wear and tear. Nor would he admit the $190. The $750 was found to be excessive. These are findings of fact.

9. Section 28(1) provides that

"Any party who is aggrieved by a decision of the tribunal -

may apply to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal and the Court of Appeal may grant such leave if it thinks fit."

10. We have indeed some sympathy with the Applicant that $100 for a new lock is possibly a little low. However, this is a finding of facts, as are the other findings. We feel that we are not in a position to intervene. Accordingly, the application for leave must be refused.

Representation:

Applicant in person.