Cheong Ghim Fah and Another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy (No 2)
| Judge | V K Rajah JC |
| Judgment Date | 11 June 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] SGHC 125 |
| Subject Matter | Section 39 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed),Civil Procedure,Words and Phrases,Order 59 r 27(5) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed),Foreign judgments,Definition,Judgment from Singapore Subordinate Courts not recognised by foreign jurisdiction,Malaysian Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958,Recognition,Proceedings prima facie falling within jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts,Costs,Whether sufficient reason to commence proceedings in Singapore High Court,Taxation,Whether proceedings ought to be taxed on High Court scale,"Sufficient reason",Conflict of Laws |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Roy Yeo (Chia Yeo Partnerhip) |
| Published date | 14 June 2004 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Defendant Counsel | Vijay Kumar Rai (V K Rai and Partners) |
11 June 2004
V K Rajah JC:
1 In Cheong Gim Fah and another v Murugian s/o Rangasamy
2 On the issue of costs, the assistant registrar, taking into account O 59 r 27 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) (“RSC”), ruled that “costs are awarded to the plaintiffs to be taxed on the [District Court] scale on a standard basis”. The assistant registrar concurrently granted the plaintiffs liberty to apply directly to me, pursuant to O 59 r 27(5), for a final decision as to whether costs should be assessed on the High Court scale.
The legislative matrix
3 While the High Court retains the general jurisdiction to entertain all manner of actions and causes, the legislature has directed, with clear lines of demarcation, which matters ought to be heard in the subordinate courts alone. There are strong policy reasons underpinned by expediency dictating that this jurisdictional demarcation be respected in the absence of any grounds satisfying the statutory acid test of “sufficient reason”. The administrative and judicial arteries of work flow in the High Court would be clogged if a cavalier approach were adopted by solicitors in observing this vital jurisdictional demarcation. Moreover, solicitors should in no event incur unnecessary costs if a more economical and equally expeditious process of dispute resolution exists. The subordinate courts have been constituted to provide a forum for the just, expeditious and economical resolution of smaller claims.
4 In light of these considerations there are inherent legislative directives governing the assessment of costs of matters which, though adjudicated in the High Court, fall within the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts. Prima facie the costs awarded in such matters ought to be assessed on the subordinate courts scale. (For ease of reference, I shall refer to such proceedings henceforth as “subordinate court proceedings”).
The legislative directives
5 Section 39 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCA”) stipulates:
(1) Where an action founded on contract or tort or any written law to recover a sum of money is commenced in the High Court which could have been commenced in a subordinate court, then, subject to subsections (3) and (4), the plaintiff —
(a) if he recovers a sum not exceeding the District Court limit, shall not be entitled to any more costs of the action than those to which he would have been entitled if the action had been brought in a District Court; and
(b) if he recovers a sum not exceeding the Magistrate’s Court limit, shall not be entitled to any more costs of the action than those to which he would have been entitled if the action had been brought in a Magistrate’s Court.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) and (b), a plaintiff shall be treated as recovering the full amount recoverable in respect of his claim without regard to any deduction made in respect of contributory negligence on his part or otherwise in respect of matters not falling to be taken into account in determining whether the action could have been commenced in a subordinate court.
(3) Where a plaintiff is entitled to costs on the subordinate courts scale only, the Registrar of the Supreme Court shall have the same power of allowing any items of costs as a District Judge or Magistrate would have had if the action had been brought in a subordinate court.
(4) In any action, the High Court, if satisfied —
(a) that there was sufficient reason for bringing the action in the High Court; or
(b) that the defendant or one of the defendants objected to the transfer of the action to a subordinate court,
may make an order allowing the costs or any part of the costs thereof on the High Court scale or on the subordinate courts scale as it may direct.
…
(6) This section shall not affect any question as to costs if it appears to the High Court that there was reasonable ground for supposing the amount recoverable in respect of the plaintiff’s claim to be in excess of the amount recoverable in an action commenced in a subordinate court.
[emphasis added]
6 Order 59 r 27(5) of the RSC stipulates:
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) to (4), if any action is brought in the High Court, which would have been within the jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any more costs than he would have been entitled to if the proceedings had been brought in a Subordinate Court, unless in any such action a Judge certifies that there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial