Lee Chor Wan v. Mp Hong Kong Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCSA 9/2003 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 April 2004.
1. These appeals were heard together. Miss Jennifer Ng appeared for the appellant, MP Hong Kong Limited, the defendant in the Small Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The respondents who were the claimants below appeared in person.
|
HCSA000009/2003 HCSA4/2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM SCTC037115/2001 --------------------------------
---------------------
SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.5 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM SCTC037116/2001 CONSOLIDATED WITH SCTC066570/2002) -----------------------------
---------------------
SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM SCTC037117/2001 CONSOLIDATED WITH SCTC066572/2002) -----------------------------
---------------------
SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM SCTC045118/2001 CONSOLIDATED WITH SCTC066573/2002) -----------------------------
---------------------
SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.8 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM SCTC045119/2001) -----------------------------
---------------------
SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO.9 OF 2003 (ON APPEAL FROM SCTC045120/2001 CONSOLIDATED WITH SCTC066574/2002) -----------------------------
--------------------- (HEARD TOGETHER) Coram: Hon Tang J in Court Dates of Hearing: 19 April 2004 Date of Judgment: 27 April 2004 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1.These appeals were heard together. Miss Jennifer Ng appeared for the appellant, MP Hong Kong Limited, the defendant in the Small Claims Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The respondents who were the claimants below appeared in person. 2.These appeals arose out of the sale of certain bed sheets or mattresses ("bed sheets") by the appellant to the respondents. 3.It is common ground that the bed sheets were sold by description and that the description is to be found in the leaflet in the promotion catalogue of the appellant :
4.It is the appellant's case that the bed sheets contained bio-ceramic which when warmed by the human body would emit FIR which would penetrate deep into the skin and stimulate blood circulation and body metabolic rates. In that way the bed sheets would promote health. 5.The bed sheet has a pattern of black dots on a white background printed on the surface. These dots are roughly 2 mm x 3 mm in size. It seems to be the appellant's case that the black dots contained bio-ceramic material. The white region on the bed sheet supposedly consists of normal bedding material. 6.To succeed in these appeals, the appellant must show that the Tribunal has erred in law. 7.Three grounds were advanced in support of the appeal. 8.The 1st ground is that on the evidence adduced by the respondents, the adjudicator erred in law in drawing the inference from the opinion of expert witnesses that the bed sheets did not conform with its description as health product and was not fit for its purpose in promoting health, and thus not of merchantable quality. 9.The 2nd ground of appeal is that :
10.The 1st and 2nd grounds should be considered together because the thrust of the argument is that the conclusions of Dr Ho Pui Ho, Aaron, a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and a university lecturer and Dr Cheung Ho Fai, a Ph.D. in physics and an associated professor at the City University of Hong Kong in the Physics Faculty, were based on erroneous assumptions, and hence there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the bed sheets were not "health products". 11.The 3rd ground of appeal related to the rejection of the evidence of the book "Far-Infrared and The Medical Revolution" by one Dr Maeda. 12.In order to succeed on the 1st and 2nd grounds, Miss Ng must demonstrate that there was no evidence on which the Tribunal could reasonably have come to the conclusion that the bed sheets did not correspond with the description and were not of merchantable quality. 13.The Tribunal had the benefit of a report by Dr Ho and Dr Cheung ("the Report"), both then lecturers in the Physics Faculty of the City University of Hong Kong, which was commissioned by the Consumer Council. 14.Their evidence was summarized by the learned tribunal officer at para.20 of the judgment :
15.In the Report, Dr Cheung and Dr Ho came to the conclusion that :
Their main findings were :
16.In order to arrive at such conclusion, they conducted experiments including taking thermal videograph of a bed sheet when it was at room temperature which shows that no additional far-infrared is emitted in comparison to the background. 17.They found that :
And it is their view that according to the theory of heat transfer by radiation, since the bed sheet does not have any internal energy source it emits thermal radiation only. 18.They then went on to compare the black dots with the white background when the bed sheet was at a higher temperature than the room. The bed sheet is heated to roughly 70°C and allowed to cool down slowly. Several thermal videographs were then taken. Their conclusion is that the black dot on the bed sheet emits a greater amount of far-infrared when the bed sheet is hotter than the ambient. In technical terms, the black dots have a higher emissivity in the far-infrared region. So according to them :
19.Also, with the use of a hot plate, they simulated the situation of a person resting on the bed sheet. They concluded :
20.They then went on to consider whether the bed sheet can effectively reduce the rate of heat lost. In that respect they considered which material is a better far-infrared absorber, and they came to the conclusion at page 327 of the bundle :
21.This, according to Miss Ng, is irrelevant because the healthy effect of the FIR does not depend on any net gain. But given that FIR can be emitted by any number of objects, Miss Ng accepted that what is critical is that the bio-ceramics embedded in or contained in the bed sheet would emit FIR at a particular beneficial wave length, namely, 8 to 14 microns. There is however no evidence that the bio-ceramic in the bed sheets emits FIR at this wave length at all. However, it should be noted that emission of FIR at 8 to 14 microns was not relied on by Mr Yong of the appellant. In the attachment to Mr Yong's witness statement, he relied on FIR at the wave length of 8 to 12 microns. 22.For the proposition that FIR at this wave length is beneficial to health. The appellant relied on certain claims made in an U.S. patent application, namely, U.S. Patent Number 4,680,822 dated 21 July 1987. The Patent relates to certain bedding which is said to contain far-infrared radiator. The abstract reads :
23.It is not Miss Ng's case that the bed sheets contain the same far-infrared radiating ceramic, but this is relied on to show that the bio-ceramic used in the bed sheets would radiate FIR at wave length of 8 to 14 microns. Given that it is not the appellant's claim that the same material was used in the bed sheet, the learned tribunal officer's conclusion at paragraph 32 of his judgment dated 20 March 2003 :
cannot be faulted. 24.The appellant also relies on a certain publication by Karo Maeda, Ph.D., M.D., Far-Infrared and The Medical Revolution, at page 335 of the bundle. The learned tribunal officer refused to have regard to this publication. This is the subject of the 3rd ground of appeal. From what I can gather from this publication which runs to 173 pages, at page 172 in the section headed "Conclusion" (page 342 of the bundle), Dr Maeda said :
25.I have to say I do not know in what way this publication is supposed to help the appellant's case. It does not prove that far-infrared is good for a person's health. Nor does it say that the bio-ceramic (if any) in the bed sheet will emit any FIR which is beneficial to a person's health. So the learned adjudicator was entitled to refuse reliance on this publication. 26.On the other hand, the experiments conducted by Dr Ho and Dr Cheung show not only there would be no net gain in FIR, the result of the experiment is that according to the theory of heat transfer, FIR would pass from the person to the bed sheet and not vice versa (see page 103 of the transcript). That is because as Dr Ho said at page 104I, the temperature of the bed sheet could not be higher than the temperature of the human body using the bed sheet, and therefore heat would be transferred from the body to the bed sheet. 27.On the evidence, the learned adjudicator has concluded that the bed sheet is not a health product and that it has no "new deep heating feature that improves blood flow". 28.I am of the opinion that the conclusion by the adjudicator is permissible on the evidence adduced before him, both on behalf of the respondents as well as on behalf of the appellant. Insofar as it is the appellant's case that the bed sheet promotes health in a particular way, it is sufficient for the respondents to show that the bed sheet does not promote health in that particular way. In this case, the respondents have shown by the Report and by the evidence of Dr Ho and Dr Cheung that there is no heat transfer from the colder object, namely the bed sheet, to the warmer object, namely the person using the bed sheet. 29.It does not matter that the experts called by the respondents knew nothing about bio-ceramic or that they knew nothing about the U.S. Patent Registration. What they were qualified to do is to show whether the bed sheet is capable of emitting FIR so as to heat or deep heat the person using the bed sheet. 30.Miss Ng argues that it erroneous to assume that any net gain of FIR by a human body is necessary in order to promote health. But there is no evidence how otherwise the bed sheet could improve the health of the user. Insofar as it is the appellant's case that it was the transfer of FIR from the bed sheet to the person using the bed sheet which promoted health, the evidence of Dr Ho and Dr Cheung is not simply based on the fact that there is no net gain, their evidence is that there would be a net loss of FIR from the person to the bed sheet. 31.It is said that the experts did not know whether it is necessary for a net gain of FIR by the body in order to have health benefit. The only evidence that the Tribunal had on which it was entitled to act was that the bed sheet would do nothing for the person. Although the burden of proof is on the respondents, that does not mean that the burden is on the respondents to eliminate all possibilities, however fanciful. Despite or because of the informality of proceedings in the Tribunal, the learned adjudicator was perfectly entitled to deal with the matter on the basis upon which the appellant contended that the bio-ceramic in the bed sheet would or could promote health. If that is not accepted or proved, then on the basis of the evidence adduced by the respondents, the Tribunal was entitled to find as a fact that the bed sheet did not correspond with description and was not of merchantable quality. 32.In my opinion, the decision of the learned adjudicator turned on the evidence. In other words, no issue of law was involved. He found on the facts that the bed sheet did not correspond with description and were not of merchantable quality. 33.There is no appeal from findings of fact from the Small Claims Tribunal. Indeed, on the evidence, with respect, the learned adjudicator was plainly right. 34.All the appeals are dismissed. 35.I make an order nisi for costs in favour of each of the respondents.
Representation: Miss Jennifer Ng, instructed by Messrs Lau, Lee & Tang, for the Appellant Respondent (Claimant) in HCSA4/2003, Wong Hiu Ling, in person Respondent (Claimant) in HCSA5/2003, Wong Kim Hang, in person Respondent (Claimant) in HCSA6/2003, represented by Wong Kim Hang, in person Respondent (Claimant) in HCSA7/2003, represented by Lee Yuen Ying, in person Respondent (Claimant) in HCSA8/2003, Szeto Oi Ying, in person Respondent (Claimant) in HCSA9/2003, represented by Wong Kim Hang, in person |