符澤明及另一人 訴 康泰旅行社有限公司

HCSA45/2004

香港特別行政區

高等法院原訟法庭

小額錢債審裁處上訴2004年第45號

(原本案件編號：小額錢債審裁處申索2004年第10599號)

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

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

主審法官：高等法院原訟法庭法官任懿君

判 案 書

1. 本席同意代表與訟人康泰旅行社的林大律師的陳詞，就是與訟人並非完全沒有安排整個旅程應有的節目，如要與訟人把每位4,000多元的團費全數奉還，實在於理不合；更何況上訴人的確已經接受和享受包含在五日四夜行程裏的其他節目。

2. 不過，問題出在這個旅行團有一個特別之處，就是旅行社曾確切地保證顧客能百分之百享用行程單上列明的所有安排，明確地承諾會做到「貨必對辦」，並基於上述保證接受上訴人報名參加這個旅行團，但旅行團最終貨不對辦。與訟人也承認沒有履行上述對行程的保證。上述保證受到的破壞，並非雞毛蒜皮的破壞，而是嚴重的破壞。本席可以想像在當時的混亂情況下，參加旅行團的人發覺沒辦法進場觀賞表演，必定感到極之失望。再者，其後團友返回車上時也沒有人向他們交代事件原因。旅行社解釋說由於沒有團友詢問，而且他們又忙於處理別的事情，所以沒有向團友説明原因；本席認爲這個藉口未免牽強。

3. 現在要處理的問題，是在法律上應怎樣計算上訴人的損失。小額錢債審裁處審裁官是以honeybee show 這個表演節目的價值和其在旅行團行程中所佔的時間來計算。可是，這個計算損失的方法並未顧及上訴人未能觀賞表演而喪失享受其樂趣 (loss of enjoyment) 及上訴人因此而感到失望 (disappointment) 此等事實。

4. 至於計算破壞合約的損失方面，法庭應該衡量合約獲得履行和不獲履行的分別，就本案而言，有關分別不僅是上訴人未能觀賞一個費用為140 港元的表演節目；因爲這是旅程中的節目，上訴人要坐飛機、住酒店，才去觀賞這個表演，所以在計算價值時，法庭不能基於上訴人已經坐了飛機、住了酒店和享用了飯食而減去這些費用。事實上，在整個行程中，上訴人需要坐飛機、住酒店、用餐後才觀賞這個表演，故此，在評估價值方面就不能只計算時間的長短或入場券的價值，還要視乎事情所牽涉的條文和背景而定。本案並非純粹涉及一個普通旅行團取消某節目這麼簡單，而是關乎一個有「百分百兌現」保證的旅行團最終未能守諾。由此看來，這點加重了破壞合約的嚴重性；本席相信這也加深了符先生和符太太當時的失望程度。

5. 根據這個背景、這個條款、這件事情的始末和其後的交代等方面來看，本席認爲上訴人未能觀賞這表演節目，因而喪失了享受樂趣，及感到失望，每人應獲最低的損失賠償為2,000元。因此 ，本席接納上訴人的上訴，各上訴人可得本庭釐定的賠償金額為2,000元 ，即總數為4,000元。

6. 是次上訴，並非由於符先生和符太太對法律有什麼認知 ，本席這麼說不是對他們心存不敬，而是事實上，他們所提出的法律理據確是比較薄弱。然而，陳暫委法官的判詞中並未清楚列明其他損失項目，而且上訴人獲判給的金額由原來的700多元增至4,000元，證明上訴人提出的上訴是實質而有效的，因此，本席認爲他們應該獲得訟費。

7. 本席把上訴人獲判的訟費評定為每人500元，其實已經考慮了他們的上訴並非全面得直這個情況。本席現以簡易程序釐定上訴人各人獲判500元訟費，即總數為1,000元。換言之，與訟人須向上訴人支付4,000元的損失賠償及1,000元的訟費，即總數5,000元。

8. 倘若與訟人能於今天支付該5,000元，便無須繳付任何利息。否則，今天以後，與訟人尚未支付的金額將以法庭的判定利率計算利息。

第一上訴人：無律師代表，親自出庭應訊

第二上訴人：無律師代表，親自出庭應訊

與訟人：由黃熾棠律師行延聘林美施大律師代表

HCSA 45/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2004

(ON APPEAL FROM SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL CLAIM

NO. SCTC 10599/2004)

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  This matter arose out of a holiday contract between the appellant and the respondent.  The appellant claimed that the respondent had failed to organize a program called the Honey Bee Show, which the respondent had undoubtedly agreed to do.  The claimant succeeded against the respondent.  The Adjudicator awarded him and one other claimant damages in the sum of $720.30.

2.  The appellant now sought leave to appeal against the decision of the officer.  The intended appeal plainly would be just on quantum.

3.  Originally the appellant and another claimant claimed that they should receive full refund of the cost of the whole tour in the sum of $8806.

4.  The approach of the Adjudicator was that having found that the respondent was in breach of the contract, he assessed the value of the Show in the context of the cost for the whole tour.  He did so with reference to the time, which the Show would occupy in the course of the whole tour.  He treated the Show as if it would occupy about one afternoon of the touring time and awarded damages on the basis that the appellants would have wasted one afternoon during the course of the tour, which would be about 10% of the touring time.  He then estimated the cost attributed to the touring time by treating half of the total cost as being for food and air fare and the fees for other programmes.  By this reasoning process, the Adjudicator arrived at a figure of $720.30 as the damages for both claimants.

5.  I am prepared to grant leave to appeal as I consider that there are the following arguable points in the appeal:

(a)    Whether the contract for the tour is an entire contract in the sense that the respondent had undertaken to supply all the programmes in consideration for the fees paid, such that the failure of to supply any programme would constitute such a fundamental breach of the contract that the claimant should be entitled to a full refund.  Alternatively, whether on true construction of the contract, the respondent is entitled to charge the fees only if they have supplied all the programmes they undertook to do.

(b)    Even if (a) in answered in favour of the respondent, whether the Adjudicator was right in his method of assessing damages and in particular whether any general damages ought to be awarded in favour of the claimant to compensate him for disappointment and frustration for not being able to watch the show.

6.  For the avoidance of doubt, I will not give leave to appeal on the alleged grounds that the tribunal officer was bias, or that he had made a wrong finding of fact on the cost of the admission ticket to the show.

7.  It is also noted that only one of the claimants’ name appeared as the appellant in the application for leave to appeal, although in the court below the claim was made by the named appellant and his wife.  The Adjudicator treated and dealt with the claims together as if it was only one claim, and the appellant had always been acting both for himself as well as his wife, the other claimant.  I was told and am satisfied that the omission to include the name of the 2^nd claimant in the application for leave to appeal was purely accidental as the appellant thought that it would be sufficient simply for him to lodge the application for leave to appeal, and I am prepared to grant leave to the appellant to amend the application for leave to appeal by including the name of the 2^nd claimant, Yiu Lai Kuen under Order 20 rule 8.

8.  In conclusion, leave is granted to amend the application for leave to appeal by addition of the Yiu Lai Kuen as a co- appellant and leave be granted to both Fu Chak Ming and Yiu Lai Kuen to appeal on the grounds aforementioned.