Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung John
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 09 December 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 61 |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 61 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Striking out Notice of Appeal served out of time |
Published date | 23 December 2009 |
Defendant Counsel | Ng Yuen (Malkin & Maxwell LLP) |
Plaintiff Counsel | The appellants in person |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
9 December 2009 |
|
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):
Introduction
1 This was an application made by Ting Kang Chung John (“the applicant”) to strike out the appeal, Civil Appeal No 18 of 2009 (“the appeal” or “CA 18/2009”), filed by Anwar Siraj and Norma Khoo (“the appellants”) against the decision of the High Court in Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung John and another
Background to application
4 The appellants were unhappy with the applicant as the appellants felt that the latter did not proceed with the arbitration with due despatch. The appellants complained about the applicant’s competence as an arbitrator and even alleged bias on his part and proceeded to institute Originating Motion No 26 of 2002 to have him removed as arbitrator. The High Court ruled that there were insufficient grounds to remove the applicant as arbitrator in Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung and another
12 The third prayer listed in [11] above was considered by the High Court in Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung John and another
13 The fifth prayer (see [11] above) came up for consideration by Lee Seiu Kin J who, in his decision in Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung John and another
The High Court’s decision
... I informed the plaintiffs that criminal complaints are investigated by the police and if any criminal offence is disclosed as a result of such investigation, the matter is referred to the Public Prosecutor who decides whether an offence is made out and if so, whether to prosecute the offender. While a judge may refer criminal complaints to the police for investigation, he has no power to order them to conduct an investigation if they decide not to do so, or to speed up any investigation. I would add that even if I had such power, in the circumstances of this case, in particular the fact that there was no connection between the events complained of in the three Magistrate’s complaints referred to in prayer 5 of the Summons and the dispute in this originating summons or any of the related cases, viz Originating Summons No 1807 of 2006 and Suit 348 of 2006, I would not be inclined to exercise such discretion to make those orders.
After the High Court decision
To continue reading
Request your trial