Chiltern Park Development Pte Ltd v Ong Pang Wee and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2002
• Date: 28 June 2002
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 687 of 2002
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chiltern Park Development Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Ong Pang Wee and others

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 135

Woo Bih Li JC

Originating Summons No 687 of 2002

High Court

Courts and Jurisdiction–High Court–Counterclaim exceeding Magistrate's Court jurisdiction–Power to transfer proceedings from Magistrate's Court to High Court–Whether High Court had jurisdiction to order transfer–Sections 24, 38 and 53 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed)–Order 89 r 2 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff sued the defendants in the Magistrate's Court. The defendants applied to transfer the suit to the High Court as the amount of their counterclaim exceeded the court's jurisdiction. The plaintiff submitted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to order the transfer.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) Clause 10 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) was to be read subject to s 18 (3). Section 18 (3) provided that the powers referred to in s 18 (2) (which included the powers in the First Schedule) were to be exercised in accordance with any written law or Rules of Court relating to them. For the purpose of this application, the relevant written law was the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) (the “SCA”): at [28] and [30].

(2) The SCA only envisaged a transfer of proceedings from the District Court to the High Court: at [31].

(3) Although O 89 r 2 (1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) referred generally to the transfer of proceedings from the Subordinate Courts to the High Court, it was to be interpreted consistently with the SCA: at [34].

[Observation: It might well be that there should be some law reform to enable a party in the High Court to apply for the transfer of Magistrate Court proceedings to the High Court, if the circumstances warranted it; and likewise, for the transfer of Magistrate's Court proceedings to the District Court which was at present limited to an important question of law or fact: at [38].]

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 89 r 2 (consd);O 89 r 1

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) ss 24, 38, 53 (consd);s 41

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) s 18, First Schedule cl 10

Loh Kim Kee ( Martin & Partners ) for the applicants/defendants

Tan Yeow Hiang ( Khattar Wong & Partners ) for the respondent/plaintiff.

Woo Bih Li JC

Background

1 This was an application by three individuals, Ong Pang Wee, Kang Yoke Ping and Ong Oon Teck (collectively referred to as “the purchasers”) to transfer an action filed by the respondent, Chiltern Park Development Pte Ltd (“the developer”), in the Magistrate's Courts as MC Suit 14303/2000/Y.

2 The purchasers had bought a property known as Blk 135 Serangoon Ave 3 #02-06 Chiltern Park, Singapore (“the property”) from the developer.

3 In the MC suit, the developer was claiming $13,443.47 from the purchasers being maintenance fees allegedly owing for the period April 1996 to June 1999 (including GST and interest).

4 In turn, the purchasers counterclaimed against the developer for defects in the property and loss of use or loss of rent.

5 The purchasers say the estimated cost of rectification works was $80,000.

6 As for loss of rent, the keys to the property were obtained in late May 1995 but due to the defects, the purchasers say they have not been able to make use of, or let out, the property. They were counterclaiming the loss of use or loss of rent from June 1995 to April 2002 and this loss was continuing. They asserted that the market rent for the property would be between $3,300 to $4,000 a month.

7 Their position was that the quantum of their counterclaim aggregated $353,900 and would come under the jurisdiction of the...