Cheng Pui Kee v. International Property Management Limited

HCSA000004/1984

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN

Coram: Hon. Mantell J.

Date of Hearing: 13th April, 1984.

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 13th April, 1984.

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Mr. Adjudicator Hon given on 20th February 1984 in the Small Claims Tribunal. The applicant is Cheng Pui Kee who has appeared on his own behalf and, if I may say so, presented his case with great courtesy and skill.

2. The matter before the Adjudicator was a claim by the company who manage the block of flats where Mr. Cheng lives. It was a claim for management fees of $1,400 calculated over seven months at $200 a month. Mr. Cheng had withheld payment of the management fees for that period as a result of a dispute which has arisen between himself and the management company over the erection on the roof of the block of flats of some toilets for use by the management staff. This, according to Mr. Cheng, has led to passage ways and corridors which he uses being less clean than they ought to be and he also has the point that the structure itself having been put there, so he says without Building Authority approval, is an illegal structure and ought to be removed. Having got no satisfaction after a good deal of correspondence between himself and the management company, he decided to withhold payment of the management fees. It is to be understood, of course, that what I am repeating now is only that which I have been told by Mr. Cheng because the management company has not appeared on this application for leave to appeal.

3. Now, to succeed in his application, Mr. Cheng has to show either that the ground of the claim was outside the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and he does not contend that, or that the Adjudicator may have been wrong in a matter of law. The relevant provision of the Small Claims Tribunal Ordinance is section 28 and the relevant part of the section is this:

"Any party who is aggrieved by a decision of the tribunal on any ground involving a question of law alone may apply to the High Court for leave to appeal and the High Court may grant such leave if it thinks fit."

Mr. Cheng has brought to my attention certain clauses of the Deed of Mutual Covenant to which he is a party and to which the management company is also a party of which he has argued that the management company are in breach. Now, he tells me that if he had made known the essence of his case to the Adjudicator and in very broad terms that is indicated in the Statement of Findings because the Adjudicator noted that Mr. Cheng was saying that the management company failed to manage its staff properly, that it caused a nuisance and that he, Mr. Cheng was the most injured party. Those reasons appearing in the Statement of Findings do not advert directly to any particular clause in the Deed of Mutual Covenant but I accept from Mr. Cheng that it was plain from the correspondence that those points which he wished to raise were put before the Adjudicator for his consideration. The Adjudicator said that those matters were irrelevant. I do not think they were irrelevant. I am not in any way purporting to pre-judge the appeal when it comes to be heard but I think they are matters upon which Mr. Cheng was entitled to have an adjudication and, therefore, this application for leave to appeal will be allowed.

Representation:

Applicant - in person.