Augustine and Another v Goh Siam Yong

CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeKarthigesu J
Judgment Date08 April 1992
Neutral Citation[1992] SGCA 24
Citation[1992] SGCA 24
Subject MatterAppeals,Words and Phrases,Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) ss 47 & 69,Damages assessed by registrar in subordinate courts,Whether judge-in-chambers exercising appellate jurisdiction -Whether 'amount in dispute' exceeded $2,000 making leave of court unnecessary,Right of appeal from decision of district judge,Appeal to district judge-in-chambers -Whether right of appeal to High Court exists,Interpretation Act (Cap 1) ss 2 & 19,Whether such rule ultra vires enabling Act,s 21 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Whether right of appeal restricted,'Amount in dispute',Civil Procedure
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselNarindar Singh (NS Kang)
Plaintiff CounselAxel Chan (Koh & Yang)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 83 of 1989
Date08 April 1992

Cur Adv Vult

The central question in this appeal was whether there is a right of appeal to the High Court from a decision of a district judge-in-chambers on a matter first heard by the registrar of the subordinate courts. Notwithstanding O 55 r 1(5) of the Subordinate Courts Rules (`the Rules`) which purported to take away the right of appeal to the High Court, Chan Sek Keong J in the court below granted the respondent a declaration that such a right of appeal subsisted [see [1989] 3 MLJ 406 ]. In the process, the learned judge found O 55 r 1(5) to be ultra vires and accordingly of no effect. This appeal was brought against his decision.

The respondent commenced MC Suit No 54 of 1988 to recover damages in respect of a traffic accident. The appellants did not enter an appearance and the respondent obtained interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed. Damages were assessed by a deputy registrar of the subordinate courts at $4,780.89. The appellants appealed to a district judge-in-chambers who reduced the damages to $1,177.50. The respondent filed a notice of appeal to the High Court against this reduced assessment. The appellants then applied to strike out the notice of appeal on the ground that by virtue of O 55 r 1(5) the respondent had no right of appeal. The whole of O 55 r 1 reads as follows:

(1) An appeal shall lie to a Judge in Chambers from any judgment, order or decision of the Registrar.

(2) The appeal shall be brought by serving on every other party to the proceedings in which the judgment, order or decision was given or made a notice in Form 111B to attend before the Judge on a day specified in the notice or on such other day as may be directed.

(3) Unless the Court otherwise orders, the notice must be filed within 5 days after the judgment, order or decision appealed against was given or made and served not less than 2 clear days before the day fixed for hearing the appeal.

(4) Except so far as the Court may otherwise direct, an appeal under this Rule shall not operate as a stay of the proceedings in which the appeal is brought.

(5) The decision of the Judge in Chambers under this Rule shall be final.

This application was heard by the deputy registrar of the Supreme Court who made no order on the application so as to allow the respondent to apply to the High Court for a declaration that she had such a right of appeal. This application for a declaration was heard by Chan Sek Keong J on 2 June 1989, and on 27...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Fong Khim Ling v Tan Teck Ann
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 10 February 2014
    ...716 (refd) Ang Swee Koon v Pang Tim Fook Paul [2006] 2 SLR (R) 733; [2006] 2 SLR 733 (refd) Augustine Zacharia Norman v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR (R) 746; [1992] 1 SLR 767 (distd) Fong Khim Ling v Tan Teck Ann [2013] SGHC 104 (refd) Herbs and Spices Trading Post Pte Ltd v Deo Silver (Pte) ......
  • Hua Sheng Tao v Welltech Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another Application
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 February 2003
    ...The answer plainly, is no. 4. Mr Srinivasan, counsel for the plaintiff, also drew my attention to Augustine & Anor v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR 767 and wondered whether the statutory limit should be pegged to the difference between the amount claimed by the plaintiff and the amount awarded ......
  • Shunmugam Jayakumar and Another v Jeyaretnam JB and Another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 August 1996
    ...for the plaintiffs.J B Jeyaretnam and G Krishnan (G Krishnan & Co) for the defendants. Augustine Zacharia Norman v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR (R) 746; [1992] 1 SLR 767 (folld) Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1870) LR 5 QB 449 (folld) Dummer v Brown [1953] 1 QB 710 (folld) Gale v Superdrug Stores......
  • Lassiter Ann Masters v to Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 26 March 2004
    ...for the respondent. Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee Ah [2004] 2 SLR (R) 361; [2004] 2 SLR 361 (refd) Augustine Zacharia Norman v Goh Siam Yong [1992] 1 SLR (R) 746; [1992] 1 SLR 767 (folld) Chang Ah Lek v Lim Ah Koon [1998] 3 SLR (R) 551; [1999] 1 SLR 82 (distd) Cheong Kim Hock v Lin Securities (Pte......
  • 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