Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 18 May 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 50
• Citation: [1989] SGHC 50
• Subject: Appeals,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
• Defendant Counsel: Colin Caines (Khosa & Caines)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mahendra Prasad Rai (Niru & Co)
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 152 of 1988
• Publication Date: 19 Sep 2003

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...