Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung John and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Andrew Ang J
• Judgment Date: 27 May 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 129
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 129
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellants/plaintiffs in person
• Published date: 29 May 2009
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Yuen (Malkin & Maxwell LLP),S Thulasidas (Ling Das & Partners)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure

27 May 2009

Andrew Ang J:

1 The plaintiffs and the second defendant (“the Contractor”) entered into arbitration proceedings over a dispute relating to the construction of the plaintiffs’ house at No 2 Siglap Valley by the Contractor. The first defendant (“John Ting”) was the arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings and has written an arbitration award (“the Award”) which has yet to be collected by either side. By way of this originating summons filed on 24 September 2008, the plaintiffs sought, inter alia, to set aside the Award and to refer its disputes with the Contractor to the courts for resolution instead. Subsequently, on 31 October 2008, the plaintiffs filed Summons No 4814 of 2008 with the following prayers:

1)	pursuant to the Rules of Court Order 4 Rule 1, the matters pending in Originating Summons OS1231/2008/W AND Originating Summons OS1807/2006/S AND Suit 348/2006/M be consolidated on such terms as the Honourable Court thinks just;
2)	any other directions which the Honourable Court deems fit and just in respect of and/or arising from the consolidation of the aforementioned three pending matters so as to ensure the economic, expeditious, fair and just resolution of all the pending matters;
3)	pursuant to the Rules of Court Order 28 Rule 8 and Order 5 Rules 2 and 4 the Originating Summons OS1231/2008/W be converted into a Writ of Summons and the proceedings should be continued as if the matter had been begun by Writ;
4)	any other directions which the Honourable Court deems fit and just in respect of and/or arising from the conversion of OS1231/2008/W into a Writ of Summons including but not limited to the requirements under Order 25 Rules 2 to 7;
5)	that the Police and/or the Commercial Affairs Dept (CAD) and/or any other appropriate Investigating Authority be directed to:
	a)	speedily complete their investigations into Magistrate’s Complaint Nos. COM-002184-04 (CM-002943-04), COM-001081-04 (CM002436-04) and MAG-000262-05/C (CM-002282-05) and to furnish their comprehensive report to this Court together with full details of the names, particulars (including NRIC No. and address) and nationality of parties named and/or identified in the report(s) and/or photographs;
	b)	speedily investigate
		i)	all allegations of fraud, fraudulent claims and cheating, falsification of bills and/or receipts made against the 1st and 2nd Defendants and/or their agents and/or staff and/or servants;
		ii)	all allegations of criminal negligence due to loss of documents and/or any other evidence caused by and/or resulting from the actions/omission of the 1st Defendant
And to submit their Report urgently and directly to this Honourable Court;
6)	any other relief and/or remedies as the Honourable Court deems fit and just;
7)	Costs.

2 In this appeal from the Assistant Registrar’s decision disallowing the plaintiffs’ application, the plaintiffs (who were unrepresented) and counsel for the defendants appeared before me on 6 March 2009 for the purpose of prayers 1 to 4, 6 and 7 set out in Summons No 4814 of 2008 ([1] above). Prayer 5 had been dealt with by Lee Seiu Kin J in Anwar Siraj v Ting Kang Chung John [2009] SGHC 71 where the learned judge declined to make the order prayed for. The parties informed me that prayers 1 and 2 had also been dealt with in Civil Appeal No...