IN THE MAGISTRATE'S COURT
AT SUVA
FIJI ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. 35 of 2014
SCT Claim # 430/2014

Between:

Gurbachan Singh's (SM) Ltd
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Roshni Chand
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Respondent in Appeal/ Original Claimant: In Person

Judgment

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 22nd May 2014 where the Referee had ordered that the Claimant is entitled to refund the deposit paid for the tray due to the Respondent's failure to act on the arrangements made between the parties. A total sum of $650.00 being the deposit and boat fare for Levuka/Suva/Levuka was allowed.

The parties chose to be heard by way of written submissions. They were given time to file the submissions. No submissions have been made. The Court gave the parties time to make submissions in Court. 

2). The Grounds of Appeal
The Appellant/Original Respondents ground of appeal can be summarized as that the Referee did not properly consider the evidence before him. This Court has noted the grounds set out in the notice of appeal.

3). The Law
Section 33 of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991 provides that:

"(1) Any party to proceedings before a Tribunal appeal against an order made by the Tribunal under section 15(6) or section 31(2) on the grounds that:

(a) the proceedings were conducted by the Referee in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings; or

(b) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction."

The scope of appeals from SCT is extremely limited. The appeal only lies where it can be said that either the proceedings were conducted in a manner which was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings or the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. There can be no appeal on merits: Sheet Metal and Plumbing (Fiji) Limited v. Deo – HBA 7 of 1999.

4). Observations

The primary concern of this Court is whether the appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) or (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above. 

This Court has noted the grounds of appeal submitted by appellant. The issue raised by the appellant is that the referee did not consider the e-sale docket and that the Appellant does not know the Respondent. The Court from the records before it finds that the Referee properly considered all matters before him. He considered all the documents. He also called Lloyd, who is the husband of the Respondent and then decided the matter. 

The matter was properly dealt with by the referee. For the above-mentioned reasons the appeal is dismissed. 

5.) Conclusion
The appellant has not met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) & (b) of the Small Claims Tribunal Decree 1991.

For the given reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. Any party aggrieved with this Ruling has the right to appeal to the High Court within 30 days. 

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE
3rd December 2014