JUDGMENT

Gopal Sri Ram JCA:

[1] The respondent runs a tuition centre. The appellant put her three children in it. Like many parents she wanted her children's English and Mathematics to improve: for them to do well in their studies. But she found the services rendered by the respondent to be wanting. She was very disappointed. She wanted a refund of the fee she had paid the respondent. The respondent was not forthcoming. So she went to the Tribunal for Consumer Claims ("the Tribunal") and filed her claim there. The Tribunal found for her. It ordered the respondent to make a partial refund. That is because it concluded that the appellant had in fact received some benefit. The respondent then applied to the High Court for judicial review to quash the Tribunal's decision. It succeeded. The Tribunal's award was quashed. The appellant appealed to us.

[2] Formerly such a case such as this, where a consumer complains of defective products or services, would have had to have been filed in the Magistrate's Court. The disposal of the case would take ages. And there was no hope of recovering anything unless it was established that there was a total failure of consideration. This is because of the decision in Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32. Consumers were therefore in a very disadvantaged position. They had little or no protection. Almost always it was the defaulting tradesman who gained.

[3] It was to remedy this injustice that Parliament enacted the Consumer Protection Act 1999 ("the Act") which came into force on 15 November 1999. Its long title sets out its general objective. It says this:

An Act to provide for the protection of consumers, the establishment of the National Consumer Advisory Council and the Tribunal for Consumer Claims, and for matters connected therewith.

[4] It has several important provisions, some of which are more beneficial than those found in the Sale of Goods Act 1956. They apply to both goods and services. The purpose of those provisions is to protect consumers from the provision of defective goods and services and to give claimants speedy relief. Parliament knew that if matters were left to the ordinary courts, the protection it had set about giving to consumers would be rendered illusory. So it established the Tribunal. A few words must be said about the way it functions and its powers.

[5] The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited to hearing claims not exceeding RM25,000 (s. 98) and proceedings before it are commenced by lodging a claim with it in the prescribed form (s. 97) within three years of the claim accruing (s. 99(2)). Parties are entitled to attend and be heard (s. 108(1)) but are not entitled to legal representation (s. 108(2)). The Act in s. 109 requires the hearings of the Tribunal to be open to the public and by s. 110 empowers the Tribunal to take evidence and "to generally direct and do all such things as may be necessary or expedient for the expeditious determination of the claim." The words to which emphasis has been supplied reflect the central theme of the Act, namely, the speedy disposal of consumer claims. You will find it repeated in s. 112(1) of the Act which requires the Tribunal to make its award "without delay and, where practicable, within sixty days from the first day the hearing before the Tribunal commences".

[6] The Tribunal has very wide powers. These are to be found in s. 112(2) which, among other things, enables the Tribunal to direct the payment of money or to direct the refund of the consideration paid for goods or services or to direct payment of compensation or to vary or set aside a contract wholly or in part. Its powers are exercisable even in the event that the party complained against fails to appear at the hearing. (See s. 111 of the Act.)

[7] Section 114 of the Act is of particular relevance to the present instance. It says that: "The Tribunal shall in all proceedings give its reasons for its award in the proceedings." T