Dongah Geological Engineering Company Ltd v Jungwoo E&C Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeSundaresh Menon CJ,Steven Chong JCA,Quentin Loh JAD
Judgment Date21 January 2022
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 62 of 2021 (Summons No 92 of 2021)
Dongah Geological Engineering Co Ltd
and
Jungwoo E&C Pte Ltd

[2022] SGCA 7

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Quentin Loh JAD

Civil Appeal No 62 of 2021 (Summons No 92 of 2021)

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure — Costs — Personal liability of solicitor for costs — Whether respondent's counsel had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently — Whether respondent's counsel caused unnecessary costs to be incurred — Whether it was just to order costs against respondent's counsel — Order 59 r 8(1) Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

Courts And Jurisdiction — Judges — Striking out notice of appeal — Appeal arising out of case involving setting aside of adjudication determination — Respondent filing two identical cross-appeals in two different appellate courts — Whether appeal arose from case relating to administrative law — Whether Court of Appeal was appropriate appellate court — Whether there was abuse of process — Sixth Schedule Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)

Held, granting the application:

(1) The Court of Appeal had the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where the appeal was not capable of argument, or the appeal was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court: at [10].

(2) The notice of appeal in CA/CA 62/2021 should be struck out for abuse of process. The respondent had unjustifiably subjected the applicant to two identical cross-appeals before two different appellate courts in a bid to hedge against the possibility that its initial filing before the Court of Appeal was a wrong call. It was clear, by any measure, that this was not an administrative law case and a single cross-appeal ought to have been made to the Appellate Division since there was no other justification for the Court of Appeal to hear this matter: at [11].

(3) Administrative law was a body of principles which regulated the exercise of public power by the Government: at [12].

(4) CA/CA 62/2021 was plainly not a case concerning administrative law. The adjudicator was not part of the Government and did not exercise any public power when making an adjudication determination. The adjudicator's role was to hold parties to their private law obligations under contract, without having regard to wider public considerations: at [13] and [14].

(5) While the court was exercising its supervisory jurisdiction when it exercised its powers of judicial review and made prerogative orders, the powers it exercised when reviewing adjudication determinations were “akin” to a quashing order but were distinct and governed by an entirely separate procedure than that which applied to judicial review. The fact that both types of remedies entailed the exercise of the court's supervisory jurisdiction addressed the nature of the judicial function that was being invoked. The fact that the nature of these powers might closely resemble judicial review powers did not make it an administrative law case: at [16].

(6) A three-step test was used to determine whether costs should be ordered against a solicitor personally: (a) whether the legal representative had acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently; (b) if so, whether such conduct caused the applicant to incur unnecessary costs; and (c) if so, was it in all the circumstances just to order the legal representative to compensate the applicant for the whole or any part of the relevant costs: at [17].

(7) The issue as to which court an appeal should be made to was purely a question of statutory interpretation of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed). That was a matter which a client would not be expected to provide any input on. Clients also depended on their counsel to take the proper procedural steps when disputes were raised as to the appropriate appellate court. The respondent's counsel had failed to act properly, reasonably and competently on both these aspects, and undertook a wasteful course of action at the respondent's expense. The applicant, which had rightly made the appeal before the Appellate Division at the outset, also had to incur unnecessary costs to respond to the two identical appeals filed before two different appellate courts by the respondent's counsel. In these circumstances, it was just to order costs against the respondent's counsel: at [18] and [21].

Case(s) referred to

Chase Oyster Bar v Hamo Industries [2010] NSWCA 190 (refd)

Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd [2015] 1 SLR 797 (folld)

Lee Wee Lick Terence v Chua Say Eng [2013] 1 SLR 401 (folld)

Munshi Rasal v Enlighten Furniture Decoration Co Pte Ltd [2021] 1 SLR 1277 (folld)

Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Shade Systems Pty Ltd [2018] HCA 4 (refd)

Ridehalgh v Horsefield [1994] Ch 205 (folld)

Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat [2005] 2 SLR(R) 188; [2005] 2 SLR 188 (folld)

Wei Fengpin v Raymond Low Tuck Loong [2022] 1 SLR 857 (folld)

Facts

On 15 July 2021, an adjudication determination was rendered under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2004 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the SOPA”), holding the applicant liable to the respondent in respect of an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Tan Beng Hui Carolyn v Law Society of Singapore
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 22 February 2023
    ...or administrative law)” it should be made to the Court of Appeal. In Dongah Geological Engineering Co Ltd v Jungwoo E&C Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 1134 (“Dongah”) at [11]–[16], the court held that a review of an adjudication determination by an adjudication panel constituted under the Building an......
  • Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court Appellate Division (Singapore)
    • 2 February 2023
    ...in the proceedings”. In this regard, the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dongah Geological Engineering Co Ltd v Jungwoo E&C Pte Ltd [2022] 1 SLR 1134 is instructive. There, the court affirmed the three-step test set out in the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Ridehalgh v Horsefield ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT