Chun Thong Ping v Soh Kok Hong and Another

• Judgment Date: 08 August 2003
• Date: 08 August 2003
• Docket Number: Suit No 419 of 2003 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chun Thong Ping

Plaintiff

and

Soh Kok Hong and another

Defendant

[2003] SGHC 172

Tay Yong Kwang J

Suit No 419 of 2003 (Registrar's Appeal No 235 of 2003)

High Court

Civil Procedure–Summary judgment–Whether application to amend Statement of Claim could be heard pending appeal against decision in respect of O 14 application based on original Statement of Claim–Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 14

Upon the hearing of an application by the plaintiff against the second defendant for summary judgment under O 14, the second defendant was given unconditional leave to defend. The plaintiff appealed against the unconditional leave and separately applied to amend the Statement of Claim by including an additional averment. At the hearing of the application to amend, the second defendant objected on the ground that there was a pending appeal based on the original Statement of Claim. It was ordered that the application to amend be heard with the appeal.

This was the plaintiff's appeal against the decision in respect of the O 14 application.

Held, granting the plaintiff leave to withdraw the appeal and amend his Statement of Claim:

(1) The position after the Rules of Court (Amendment No 4) Rules 2002 (S 565/2002) was that a plaintiff could not add a new cause of action by way of an amendment to his Statement of Claim between the hearing of an O 14 application at first instance and the appeal therefrom, and proceed on that new cause of action on appeal: at [10].

(2) Where a plaintiff had amended his Statement of Claim materially after the Defence had been served, he should not take out an O 14 application until after the defendant had had the opportunity to amend his Defence. Where the plaintiff had made such amendments when the application had already been taken out but not heard, he should not be allowed to proceed with the application unless the defendant had had the opportunity to amend his Defence. If the plaintiff's affidavit accompanying his O 14 application did not “contain all necessary evidence in support” of the amended claim pursuant to O 14 r 2 (8), then he should withdraw his application and lodge a new application with the proper affidavit: at [12] to [13].

[Observation: It was incumbent on a plaintiff who wished to proceed under O 14 to get all his pleadings and evidence in order before he launched an application meant to obviate a trial in open court: at [14].]

Techmex Far East Pte Ltd v Logicraft Products Manufacturing Pte Ltd [1997] 2 SLR (R) 919; [1998] 1 SLR 483 (refd)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 14 (consd);O 18 r 2 (2)

Rules of Court (Amendment No 4) Rules 2002 (S 565/2002)

Chen Chuen Tat (Acies Law Corporation) for the plaintiff

...