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

Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2013
SCT Claim # 640/2013

Between:

Pacific Coatings Ltd
Appellant (Magistrates Court)/ Respondent (Small Claims Tribunal)

And:

Ram Tarak
Respondent (Magistrates Court)/
Claimant (Small Claims Tribunal)

Appellant/ Original Respondent: In Person
Respondent/ Original Claimant: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction
The Appellant/Original Respondent (Pacific Coatings Ltd) in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee, dated 9th April 2013 that the "… the Court [Tribunal] did not give the appellant an opportunity to explain nor the submissions were given due consideration." 

At hearing the parties sought that the matter be heard by way of written submission. Both were given time to make submissions. The Appellant only made submissions which have been considered. 

2). 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.

3). Observations
The primary concern of this Court is whether the appellant has met the threshold set out in section 33(1) (a) and (b) of the "Small Claims Tribunal" Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above. This Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records, the documents tendered in the Small Claims Tribunal and the submissions made by the parties. 

4.) Conclusion

The Referee heard the representative of the appellant, Mr Dewan Chand. The Referee noted that the representative of the appellant alleged that the surface was not correctly done. The Referee further noted that the representative of the appellant agreed that he had painted the roof in question and the result was the same – paint had wrinkled. He agreed that the paint had faded. The Referee at the Tribunal believed the Claimant who had been in the paint business for 40 years as a salesman and later a sales manager. The Referee further in analyzing the matter noted that the claimant would have known and ensured that all precautions were taken in painting the roof, which this Court takes to include preparing the surface prior to painting. 

The appellant has alleged that the Referee did not give them an opportunity to neither explain nor consider their submission. This Court has carefully perused the Tribunal records and all the documents that were filed in SCT. From its perusal of the documents and the records this Court finds that the Referee fairly dealt with the claim. He considered all matters which were before him. The Referee gave the appellants opportunity to present its case. The referee believed the version put forward by the claimant. This Court will not interfere with the decision of the Referee which was based on careful consideration of all the facts and the evidence that was put before him. 

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
 
18th March 2014