Oliver Katherine Quebec v. Po Sing Employment Service Centre Ltd

HCSA2/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 2/2013

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM

NO. 40247 OF 2012)

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

BETWEEN

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

Before : Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 20 March 2013

Date of Judgment : 20 March 2013

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1.This is an application for leave to appeal against a Decision of the Small Claims Tribunal (“Tribunal”) dated 28 February 2013 made in SCTC 40247/2012 whereby the claimant’s claim against the defendant, an employment agency, was dismissed.

2.The claimant worked as a domestic worker in Hong Kong at the introduction of the defendant during the period between September to November 2010.  She claimed that a total sum of HK$5,500 had been deducted from her salaries by the defendant (“Deductions”). 

3.SCTC 40247/2012 was the second claim brought by the claimant against the defendant in respect of the Deductions.  The first claim, SCTC 4710/2012, was dismissed by a Decision dated 5 October 2012.  Leave to appeal against that Decision was refused by Madam Justice Au-Yeung on 25 October 2012.  I note from the court record that the claimant had failed to appear at the hearing of her application for leave to appeal.

4.It is trite law that a litigant is not entitled to bring multiple actions in respect of the same subject matter.  The outcome of SCTC 40247/2012 was therefore unsurprising.  It is equally trite that an appeal against a decision of the Tribunal must be one of law. 

5.There is one ground of appeal advanced by the claimant, namely, she has “new evidence” in support of her case.  There is no particulars provided in the application as to what the new evidence is.  Fresh evidence is rarely admissible on appeal.  The claimant has failed to appear this morning.

6.In the premises, this application is dismissed.

The claimant (appellant) was not represented and did not appear