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

Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2013
SCT Claim # 2672/11

Between:

Teddy Paul Rogers & Lui Rogers
Appellant/ Original Respondent

And :

Vikash Kumar
Original Claimant / Respondent in Appeal

For the Appellant/ Original Claimant: In Person
Respondent/ Respondent in Appeal: In Person.

Ruling

1). Introduction

The Appellant/Original Respondent in this action has appealed the decision of the Referee who ordered on 30th January 2012 that "The respondent pay the Claimant the sum of $5000 within 3 months of the date of the Order." 

2). The Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant/Original Respondent's grounds of appeal is as follows: "was not given an opportunity to be heard…" 

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) and (b) of the "Small Claims Tribunal" Decree. The grounds of Appeal advanced by the Appellant have been reproduced above. 

The Court has carefully examined the Small Claims Tribunal records. This Courts perusal of the records shows that the Referee has fairly determined the claim. The Claimant and the Respondent were heard and the documents submitted considered. The Grounds raised in appeal by the Appellant does not meet the threshold and the Records reveal that the Referee properly considered all the matters that were before him. 

5.) Conclusion

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

The appeal is dismissed. 

Chaitanya Lakshman
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE

6th November 2013