Executive, restaurant settle case over HK$6 extra charge on lunch tab

[OneStepCloser]

Executive, restaurant settle case over HK$6 extra charge on lunch tab

After legal tussle for overcharging, tutorial firm director agrees to pay and restaurant owner accedes to correct amount of HK$430

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 10 December, 2013, 7:17pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 10 December, 2013, 7:23pm

Julie Chu [email protected]

One of the contentious charges on the restaurant bill was HK$2 extra for a bowl of rice. Photo: Bloomberg

The Chinese restaurant and the educator who had been locked in a legal battle triggered by a HK$6 overcharge on a lunch bill have settled the complaint at the Small Claims Tribunal, with the adjudicator remarking there was no need to go on trial.

James ffitzRoy sued Chao Yang Restaurant after the Tsim Sha Tsui establishment’s owner filed a complaint before the tribunal over his non-payment of the tab from October 22.

FfitzRoy, an Oxford-educated tutorial firm director, contended he was overcharged by HK$4 for a dish of string beans and HK$2 for a bowl of rice on a bill totalling HK$436. The restaurant staff admitted it was a mistake, but failed to give him a revised bill.

The row then escalated within days over e-mail, ending in legal action from both parties.

On Tuesday, however, Chao Yang director Robert Tsai and Louis Hop Lee, ffitzRoy’s legal officer, signed an agreement where ffitzRoy and his colleague, Janice Leung, would pay the correct amount of HK$430. Leung, who booked the table at Chao Yang, was named in the original complaint.

The restaurant also agreed to send the correct bill within two days.

“I do not know why this case has to go for a trial when one side is willing to pay and the other side is willing to accept the HK$430,” said adjudicator Cheng Lim-chi.

“The [restaurant] was wrong in making the wrong bill, but the defendant was also wrong in not making the payment,” Cheng said.

Cheng said he was aware that ffitzRoy had filed a civil suit before the District Court, but Cheng said there was no reason the matter could not be resolved then and there.

Leung and ffitzRoy were ordered to settle the amount by December 16.

As the adjudicator found the restaurant made the mistake on the bill first, he did not order the defendants to pay for the added costs.

“I only represented the restaurant to get back what the restaurant should get,” Tsai said outside the court. He added that if ffitzRoy did not pursue the civil suit, then he would not proceed with the case further.

FfitzRoy earlier said that the case, fighting over HK$6, was one way to raise awareness about consumer rights.

In his lawsuit – which cost him HK$630 to file – ffitzRoy said the restaurant violated the Trade Description ordinance. He also claimed he and his staff suffered distress and embarrassment as a direct result of the incident.