Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA
• Judgment Date: 25 January 2022
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 29 of 2021

Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred

and

Phua Swee Khiang and another

[2022] SGCA 8

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA

Originating Summons No 29 of 2021

Court of Appeal

Courts and Jurisdiction — Judges — Transfer of cases — Applicant seeking to transfer appeal from Appellate Division of High Court to be heard by Court of Appeal — Whether application for transfer should be granted

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The overarching inquiry in such applications was whether it was more appropriate for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal: at [2].

(2) In an area governed principally by legislation, any submission that the law ought to be different had to be effected with regard to the proper interpretation of that legislation. The applicant did not point to any amendments to the Act since Turner which warranted a further examination of the principles set out in Turner. The reform for which he was arguing was more appropriately within the purview of the Legislature, and not the courts: at [5].

(3) What was left of the issues raised by the applicant concerned primarily the application and interpretation of well-established law. These were areas for which the Appellate Division of the High Court was quintessentially the appropriate forum, and where it was not more appropriate for the Court of Appeal to hear the appeal: at [6].

(4) Neither O 56A r 12(3)(a) nor O 56A r 12(3)(b) of the ROC was satisfied. The demographic said to be affected by the interpretation and application of the Act was only a small segment of society. It was not apparent that a decision on what constituted acting “as an advocate and solicitor” would have the potential to affect Singapore on a macro-level: at [8].

(5) The applicant had not satisfied the requirement under O 56A r 12(3)(c) of the ROC that both complexity and novelty had to be present. The factual scope of his case on appeal had been dramatically reduced, and the matter did not disclose any particular degree of legal complexity: at [9].

(6) The mere fact that the courts in Singapore had taken a different approach on a particular issue as compared to other jurisdictions could not be taken to satisfy O 56A r 12(3)(e) of the ROC. It was therefore not sufficient for the applicant to simply raise English authorities which had taken a different approach from Turner: at [10].

(7) In respect of O 56A r 12(3)(f) of the ROC, the fact that the trial judge's finding paved the way for the applicant to be prosecuted under s 33 of the Act did not suffice to bring the applicant beyond the threshold of “a high and exceptional degree of personal consequence”: at [11].

Case(s) referred to

Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang [2021] SGHC 154 (refd)

Noor Azlin bte Abdul Rahman v Changi General Hospital Pte Ltd [2021] 2 SLR 440 (refd)

Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd [1988] 1 SLR(R) 281; [1988] 1 SLR 1037 (refd)

Facts

This was an application for the transfer of an appeal from the Appellate Division of the High Court to the Court of Appeal. The fundamental issue on appeal was what constituted acting “as an advocate and solicitor” within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) (the “Act”). The applicant submitted that the trial judge had erred in applying the tests set out in Turner (East Asia) Pte Ltd v Builders Federal (Hong Kong) Ltd[1988] 1 SLR(R) 281 (“Turner”). He argued for a new test...