Lim Eng Hock Peter v Batshita International (Pte) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Amarjeet Singh JC
• Judgment Date: 06 June 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 117
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 237 of 1996
• Date: 06 June 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ling Tien Wah (David Lim & Partners)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 117
• Defendant Counsel: S Asogan (R Raman & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether dispute or difference in law existed to allow for arbitration,Tenancy contract,Application for summary judgment,Whether 'step' taken,Agreement,Summons-in-chambers for stay of proceedings pending arbitration and filing of affidavit to support application,Arbitration

The plaintiff applied by originating summons on 13 March 1996 that matters in dispute in a tenancy agreement dated 24 February 1995 between him and the defendants which contained an arbitration clause be referred to arbitration pursuant to s 7 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10) and that further proceedings in MC Suit No 21401 of 1995 commenced in the subordinate courts by the defendants relating to the said matters be stayed pending the determination of the arbitration. I so ordered. The defendants being dissatisfied now appeal. The background of the plaintiff`s application is briefly as follows.

The plaintiff was a tenant of 29 Leonie Hill #16-03 Horizon Towers (West) Singapore 0923 (the premises). The defendants were his landlords. By action commenced on 12 December 1995 in the subordinate courts, the defendants claimed rent due from the plaintiff to the defendants under the tenancy agreement in the sum of $28,500 from the months of August to December 1995 and other miscellaneous amounts. The premises were let for one year under the said agreement, from 1 February 1995 to 31 January 1996 at a rent of $5,700 which comprised of $2,750 for the premises, $2,550 for furnishings and fittings and $425 for maintenance and services. The plaintiff filed an appearance on 18 December 1995. The defendants filed an application for summary judgment on 22 December 1996. On 17 January 1996 the plaintiff applied in the subordinate courts to stay the defendants` action on the ground that the tenancy agreement had an arbitration clause and he wished to refer the matter for arbitration in accordance with s 7 of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10) (the Act). The plaintiff`s application was supported by his affidavit. The defendants filed an affidavit in reply. The subordinate courts have no jurisdiction to make the order under s 7 of the Act read with s 2 as the application under s 7 has to be made to the High Court. Section 7 of the Act states:

If any party to an arbitration agreement, or any person claiming through or under him, commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the arbitration agreement, or any person claiming through or under him, in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to the legal proceedings may at any time after appearance, and before delivering any pleadings or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the court to stay the proceedings.

On hearing of the plaintiff`s application to stay, the action was stayed pending the plaintiff`s application to the High Court. The defendants` application for summary judgment was adjourned sine die.

In the application before me, defence counsel raised two issues. They were:

(1) whether the plaintiff had pursuant to s 7 of the Act taken any other step in the proceedings after appearance; or

(2) whether there was any `dispute or difference` between the defendants and the plaintiff as landlord and tenant touching any clause matter or thing contained in the agreement.

Clause 5(j) of the tenancy agreement provides:

If any dispute or difference shall arise between the landlord and tenant touching any clause, matter or thing whatsoever herein contained or the operation or construction thereof or any matter or thing in any way connected with this agreement then in every such case the dispute or difference shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act (Cap 10) or any statutory modifications thereof.

The defendants` stand was that the plaintiff had taken a step in the proceedings as a result of which arbitration proceedings would not be available to him. In the event he had not taken a step, the plaintiff`s application should nevertheless fail as no `dispute or difference` arose in law between them touching any clause or matter in the said agreement. I shall briefly discuss each issue.

`Step`

Defence counsel averred that by paras 3 to 12 of the plaintiff`s affidavit dated 17 January 1996 filed in the MC suit, the plaintiff was in fact defending the application for summary judgment and had thus taken a step in the proceedings (S/C No 16451 of 1995). Having read the said affidavit in the proceedings below as exhibited, I am unable to agree with defence counsel. The plaintiff in fact filed the affidavit in support of his S/C No 786/96 to stay the defendants` action and the said paragraphs relate predominantly to the second issue, ie as to whether there was a `dispute or difference`. Indeed the defendants` affidavit dated 29 January 1996 (as prefaced by paras 2 and 3) is itself a reply to the plaintiff`s application in that regard. That the contents of the plaintiff`s affidavit can also be construed somewhat as answering the defendants` claim cannot be interpreted as meaning that the plaintiff is defending the separate application for summary judgment filed by the defendants.

In my opinion, no step is taken by a defendant in a suit or action in order to stay the proceedings brought against him in that suit or action if he issues a...