HCSA 30/2023

[2024] HKCFI 1902

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO 30 OF 2023

(On appeal from Small Claims Tribunal Claim No 3908 of 2022)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

Introduction

1. Pursuant to leave granted on 12 October 2023, this is the appeal of the claimant (“ Mr Wong ”) against the decision of the deputy adjudicator (the “ Adjudicator ”) made on 27 July 2023 in the Small Claims Tribunal proceedings SCTC 3908/2022 (the “ Review Decision ”).

2. The relevant undisputed factual background had been summarized by Mr Anthony Chan SC and Mr Jeff Yau, Counsel for Mr Wong, based on the Chinese decision of the Adjudicator dated 2 March 2023 (the “ Decision ”) and the Chinese decision of another deputy adjudicator dated 16 November 2021 in another proceedings (SCTC 19453/2020 and SCTC 19454/2020) (the “ IM Decision ”) commenced by Mr Wong’s wife at the material time (“ Mrs Wong ”):

(1) On 31 August 2014, Mrs Wong purchased a “55 ^th Anniversary” beauty package from Ingrid Millet Ltd (“ IM ”) (the “ Service Agreement ”). The Service Agreement consisted of 70 treatment units at the price of HK$40,000, which was settled under a loan agreement called an instalment payment plan (the “ IPP ”) whereby Mrs Wong agreed, inter alia , the defendant (“ BoCom ”) would advance HK$40,000 to IM while she would repay the same in instalments using her supplementary credit card.

(2) According to the findings of fact of the Small Claims Tribunal (“ Tribunal ”) in the IM Decision, Mrs Wong signed the IPP in the following circumstances:

(a) IM was in the possession of documents issued by BoCom concerning the IPP including, inter alia , blank forms of the IPP.

(b) IM’s staff followed the instructions on a document issued by BoCom and rang a telephone number stated on that document to seek BoCom’s approval on the IPP.

(c) When BoCom’s staff asked Mrs Wong over the telephone whether she understood the terms of the IPP, she said “no” and as a result BoCom refused to give the approval.

(d) IM’s staff then told Mrs Wong that all she needed to do was to tell BoCom’s staff she understood the terms of the IPP, which were the same as before. IM’s staff rang BoCom again and when Mrs Wong was asked over the telephone whether she understood the terms of the IPP, she answered “understood” as IM’s staff requested.

(e) Accordingly, BoCom gave its approval and Mrs Wong then appended 6 signatures to a copy of the IPP upon IM’s staff’s request.