Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeLai Kew Chai J
Judgment Date18 May 1989
Neutral Citation[1989] SGHC 50
Citation[1989] SGHC 50
SubjectAppeals,Whether mere dispute on facts warrants grant of leave to appeal,Civil Procedure,Leave,Whether such material departure exists,Award of damages by magistrate,s 21 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Material departure from statement of claim alleged
Docket NumberOriginating Motion No 152 of 1988
Defendant CounselColin Caines (Khosa & Caines)
Plaintiff CounselMahendra Prasad Rai (Niru & Co)
Publication Date19 September 2003
Date18 May 1989

Cur Adv Vult

This is an application for leave to appeal under s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act against the judgment of a magistrate who awarded $1,660 damages to the plaintiff arising out of a collision between the plaintiff`s taxi and the defendant`s lorry. Section 21 provides, inter alia, that there shall be a right of appeal if the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000 or `with leave of the High Court if under that amount`. The High Court`s power is obviously discretionary and such discretionary power has to be exercised judicially and ought to be exercised if prima facie and generally it could be shown that justice would require an appellate investigation of the case.

I was referred by counsel for the appellant/defendant to two cases, namely, Wong Yin & Ors v Wong Mook [1986] 2 MLJ 145 and Pang Hon Chin v Nahar Singh [1948] MLJ 164 . These cases did not lay down any exhaustive principle but they are authority for the following propositions. To obtain leave to appeal when the amount involved is below the statutory amount an applicant for leave must show that a serious and important issue of law is involved. That was held by Murray-Aynsley CJ in Wong Yin`s on the basis that rights of appeal are purely creatures of statutes and a court cannot entertain any which cannot be brought strictly within the statutory limit. The circumstances for granting leave would include (though obviously not limited to) cases where an applicant is able to demonstrate a prima facie case of error or if the question is one of general principle upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to public advantage. That was pronounced by Edgar Joseph Jr J in Pang Hon Chin `s case. These propositions have a common thread: that to deny leave may conceivably result in a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant in this case sought to persuade me that the respondent had materially departed from para 2 of his statement of claim and from his police report where he said that the nearside of his taxi had collided into the rear offside of the lorry which had emerged from a parking lot. It was said by counsel that, at the trial, the driver of the taxi had said that the lorry was parked at 90 degrees to Bishan Street 12 and had emerged from the parking lot...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Hua Sheng Tao v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another Application
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 February 2003 the point that it may depend on who the party appealing is, and on that basis, distinguished Anthony s/o Savarimuthu v Soh Chuan Tin [1989] SLR 607. The relevance of the party intending to appeal is that the amount in dispute so far as one party is concerned may not be the same as regard......
  • Augustine and Another v Goh Siam Yong
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 8 April 1992
    ...Axel Chan (Koh & Yang) for the appellants Narindar Singh (N S Kang) for the respondent. Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin [1989] 1 SLR (R) 588; [1989] SLR 607 (distd) Herbs and Spices Trading Post Pte Ltd v Deo Silver (Pte) Ltd [1990] 2 SLR (R) 685; [1990] SLR 1234 (folld) Interp......
  • Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and Another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 22 August 1997
    ...set out in the cases of Pang Hon Chin v Nahar Singh [1986] 2 MLJ 145 and Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin [1989] 3 MLJ 5 ; [1989] SLR 607.In Pang `s case, Edgar Joseph Jr J laid down the following principles at p The circumstances in which leave to appeal will be granted would i......
  • Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 4 May 2004
    ...Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed [1999] 3 SLR (R) 138; [1999] 4 SLR 716 (folld) Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin [1989] 1 SLR (R) 588; [1989] SLR 607 (folld) Goh Kim Heong v AT and J Co Pte Ltd [2001] 3 SLR (R) 167; [2001] 4 SLR 262 (folld) Hoddle v CCF Construction Ltd [19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT