Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA,Tay Yong Kwang JA,Steven Chong JA
• Judgment Date: 27 November 2017
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 33 of 2017
• Date: 27 November 2017

Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd

and

ViewQwest Pte Ltd

[2017] SGCA 67

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA and Steven Chong JA

Civil Appeal No 33 of 2017

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure — Rules of court — Order 14 r 12 — Application to determine question of law regarding reliefs available for tort of conversion — Judge deciding application on basis of factual unsustainability — Whether judge erred in making findings as to disputed facts — Order 14 r 12 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

Equity — Approbation and reprobation — Party framing and arguing question of law in O 14 r 12 application in confusing manner leading to error in judge's decision — Whether party barred from subsequently challenging decision on basis of that error — Order 14 r 12 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the appeal and dismissing the application:

(1) The principle of approbation and reprobation required an election to be reasonably clear. The appellant's position before the Judge on whether factual determinations could be made in the application was incoherent, equivocal, and confusing. Being so unclear, the appellant's statements could not constitute an election and did not engage the principle of approbation and reprobation: at [5] and [10] to [14].

(2) An application for the determination of a question of law under O 14 r 12 was meant to save time and costs. A question had to meet three requirements to be suitable for the O 14 r 12 procedure. First, it had to be a question of law. Second, it had to be suitable for summary determination. Third, it had to be the case that answering the question would fully determine either the whole cause or matter, or at least one claim or issue within it: at [6].

(3) The question as framed by the appellant required the court to determine disputed questions of fact in addition to questions of law. The Judge had erred in making a number of factual determinations which were not appropriate in an O 14 r 12 application, and in disposing of the application on that basis: at [7], [8] and [15].

(4) In the circumstances, remitting the question to the Judge to be interpreted and answered using the correct approach would not save time and costs, and thus the application was to be dismissed: at [9] and [15].

Case(s) referred to

ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 918 (refd)

Facts

In the first part of a bifurcated trial, the appellant obtained interlocutory judgment against the respondent on liability for conversion – specifically, for retaining and using the appellant's equipment.

Before the assessment of damages stage commenced, the appellant applied under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the application”) to determine whether it was entitled to an account of profits and the disgorgement of such profits from the respondent. The appellant also sought the determination of whether it was entitled to punitive, exemplary, or aggravated damages.

The High Court judge (“the Judge”) decided the application on the factual point that the respondent had not acted cynically or deliberately in retaining and using the appellant's equipment. Accordingly, he held that the appellant was not entitled to disgorgement of the respondent's profits, or to punitive, exemplary, or aggravated damages.

On appeal, the appellant submitted that the Judge had erred by deciding disputed questions of fact in an O 14 r 12 application. The respondent argued...