Abdul Rahim v Ling How Doong and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Warren Khoo L H J
• Judgment Date: 07 April 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 92
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1104 of 1993
• Date: 07 April 1994
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ronald Lee and John Tay (Ronald Lee & Co)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 92
• Defendant Counsel: Patrick Seong (Peter Low Seong Tang & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Representative action,Parties,Need for common interest,Whether difference of views barred representation,Civil Procedure

Cur Adv Vult

This is one (I am not sure if it is the last one) of a series of legal actions arising from the differences within the Singapore Democratic Party as a result of the loss of control of the party to a faction within the party who did not see eye to eye with the party`s founder, Mr Chiam See Tong on certain fundamental issues of policy and practice. An event that marked a turning point in the continuing development of these differences was the election of the 11 defendants to the Central Executive Committee at the ordinary party conference held at the Landmark Hotel on 10 January 1993.

By this summons, the plaintiff seeks to impugn the validity of the proceedings of that conference, including the election of the defendants as members of the Central Executive Committee (`CEC`). He asks the court to declare that the conference and the election were contrary to the party`s constitution, illegal and of no effect. The sole ground of the claim is that some persons who had ceased to be members of the party attended the conference and took part in the election of members of the CEC. It is his case that these persons had ceased to be members because they had failed to pay their annual subscriptions.

Membership of the party falls into two broad classes, those who are cadre members and those who are not.

The constitution provides that members who have proved their loyalty to the principles and objects of the party may be appointed by the CEC as cadre members. For convenience, I refer to those who are not cadre members as ordinary members, although that term is not used in the constitution. Only cadre members are entitled to attend a party conference. Ordinary members, as well as cadre members, are entitled to attend party congresses. The party conference is the more powerful of the two. It is at this forum, not the party congress, that the central executive committee is elected, as stated above.

Locus standi: representative action

The plaintiff professes to sue on behalf of himself and on behalf of all members of the party. The affidavits of three persons who claim to be ordinary members of the party were filed in support of his action. The deponents all say that the action was begun with their authority, approval and consent. For the defendants, affidavits of three persons who claim to be cadre members were similarly filed, but the deponents all say that they never authorized or consented to the plaintiff`s action. They in fact object to his claim that he is suing on behalf of all members of the party.

The defendants say that the plaintiff was only an ordinary member, and not a cadre member. Only cadre members have the right to attend the party conference, to elect other cadre members to the CEC and to be elected to the CEC. They say that as an ordinary member, the plaintiff has no interest in the CEC and has no right to question the election of members of the CEC.

The plaintiff relies on O 15 r 12(1) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, which provides for representative actions as follows:

Where numerous persons have the same interest in any proceedings ... the proceedings may be begun, and, unless the Court otherwise orders, continued, by or against any one or more of them as representing all or as representing all except one or more of them.

Plaintiff`s counsel submits that the action has been properly constituted. He also relies on the case of Jok Jau Evong & Ors v Marabong Lumber Sdn Bhd & Ors for the proposition that a plaintiff suing in a representative capacity does not have to obtain the consent of those whom he purports to represent. He also submits, on the basis of that case, that the fact that there are two factions within the party does not prevent a representative action from being constituted.

I do not accept the submission of defendants` counsel that as an ordinary member the plaintiff has no right to question the regularity of an election of the CEC. The rights of a member of an association of persons are regulated by contract, ie, the constitution in this case. The constitution provides for the election of members of the CEC. It must be implied that all elections must be properly held. There is thus a contractual obligation among all members of the party, cadre or not, to this effect. When an election is not in order, it is my view that a member`s right is thereby adversely affected. Where there is a wrong, there is a redress.

In John v Rees , an interesting case arising from internal difficulties in the Pembrokeshire Divisional Labour Party, Megarry J said, appropriately for the present case:

All members of the [party] have a common interest in the [party], its officers and its assets: and it is plainly desirable that all should know and recognize who its officers are and are not.

The rule as to representative action is intended to make it unnecessary for all persons of a large group with the same interest to be joined as parties to an action. The representation is a device whereby all parties interested, without being joined as parties, are represented so that the controversy in the suit may be finally determined. It is eminently suitable as a vehicle for the resolution of the controversy in the present case.

The representor does not in reality represent a group of people as people; rather he represents a common interest. As Cotton LJ said in Watson v Cave (No 1) at p 22:

... the plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and all others who have the same interest as himself, that is, not all those who take the same view of what is for their benefit, but all those who, being interested jointly with him in some property, have not taken any steps to assert their rights adversely to those which the plaintiff chooses to assert.

Megarry J in John v Rees at p 371 said:

Although there is thus a clear common interest between all the members in having the issue determined, they

...