Ang Swee Koon v Pang Tim Fook Paul

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2006
• Date: 10 April 2006
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 33 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ang Swee Koon

Plaintiff

and

Pang Tim Fook Paul

Defendant

[2006] SGHC 61

Kan Ting Chiu J

District Court Appeal No 33 of 2005

High Court

Civil Procedure–Appeals–Leave–Appeal filed as of right as amount under appeal exceeding minimum amount for which appeal may be filed without leave of court–Whether leave required if amount under appeal subsequently falling below minimum amount–Section 21 (1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)

The appellant filed an appeal under s 21 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”) against a district judge's assessment of damages for pain and suffering, and loss of earning capacity that the respondent suffered following a motor accident. The appeal was filed without leave of court as the amount under appeal exceeded $50,000, the minimum amount for which an appeal could be filed without leave of court (“the minimum amount”).

Subsequently, the appellant limited his appeal to the award for loss of earning capacity of $20,000. Counsel for the respondent made a preliminary objection that the appeal could not proceed unless leave of court was obtained since the amount under appeal had fallen below $50,000. The preliminary issue before the court was whether leave to appeal was required if the amount under appeal, in an appeal initially filed as of right, subsequently fell below the minimum amount.

Held:

(1) Except for the decision in Hua Sheng Tao v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd [2003] 2 SLR (R) 137, the court had consistently looked at the amount of the judgment sum under appeal or the amount in dispute in the appeal rather than the amount at trial. The test to be preferred was that which looked at the amount in dispute in the appeal: at [21] and [25].

(2) In the circumstances, it was clear that an appeal against the award of $20,000 for the loss of earning capacity required the leave of court. Section 21 (1) of the SCJA meant that an appeal should not lie (except with leave) to the High Court where the subject matter did not exceed $50,000. As the value of the subject matter could change, the right of appeal without leave had to also be liable to change in response to that: [26] and [27].

Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed [1999] 3 SLR (R) 138; [1999] 4 SLR 716 (refd)

Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin [1989] 1 SLR (R) 588; [1989] SLR 607 (refd)

Augustine Zacharia Norman v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR (R) 746; [1992] 1 SLR 767 (refd)

Hua Sheng Tao v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd [2003] 2 SLR (R) 137; [2003] 2 SLR 137 (distd)

Sethuraman Arumugam v Star Furniture Industries Pte Ltd [1999] SGHC 144 (refd)

Tan Chiang Brother's Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd [2002] 1 SLR (R) 633; [2002] 2 SLR 225 (refd)

Twin Enterprises Pte Ltd v Lim Heng Wah Peter [2000] SGHC 288 (refd)

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 21 (1) (consd)

David Kong Tai Wai (Yeo-Leong & Peh LLC) for the appellant

Anthony Chey Cheng Chwen (Benedict Chan & Company) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

Kan Ting Chiu J

1 This is an appeal against a district judge's assessment of damages for personal injuries and other losses the respondent suffered following a motor accident.

2 It started out unremarkably, but ended up with counsel and I having to deal with a point which does not appear to have been decided before, ie, whether leave is needed for an appeal filed as of right if the amount under appeal subsequently falls below the threshold limit under which leave to appeal is required.

3 On 13 September 2005, a district judge made an assessment of damages in favour of the respondent. Two of the awards were for:

(a) Pain and suffering:
i neck injury	$12,000
ii back injury	$ 6,500
iii right knee injury	$10,000
iv right wrist injury	$ 2,500	$31,000
(b) Loss of earning capacity		$20,000

4 The appellant was aggrieved by the two awards and filed an appeal to the High Court under s 21 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) which provides that:

[A]n appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a District Court or Magistrate's Court in any suit or action for the recovery of immovable property or in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter exceeds $50,000 or such other amount as may be specified by an order made under subsection (3) or with the leave of a District Court, a Magistrate's Court or the High Court if under that amount.

No leave of court was obtained for the filing of the appeal as it was not required.

5 After the appeal was filed, the appellant received and read the district judge's grounds of decision and decided not to proceed with the appeal against the award of damages for pain and suffering. Consequently, in the appellant's case filed, the appeal was limited to the award for the loss of earning capacity.

6 When the appeal came up for hearing before me, counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection. The objection was that when the appeal is restricted to the $20,000 award, the appeal cannot proceed unless leave of court is obtained. He...