Globe-Sea Offshore Engineering Pte Ltd v DNET Contract Services Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 18 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 74
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: HC/Originating Summons No 1497 of 2018
• Published date: 21 March 2019
• Year: 2019
• Hearing Date: 08 March 2019,26 February 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lalwani Anil Mangan (DL Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Chia Wei Lin Rebecca and Roy'yani Binte Abdul Razak (I.R.B. Law LLP)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Appeals,Leave
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 74

Choo Han Teck J:

This is Globe-Sea Offshore Engineering Pte Ltd’s (“the Applicant”) application for leave to appeal against the learned District Judge Constance Tay Woan Fen (“Tay DJ”)’s decision in MC/MC 3212/2017 (“MC 3212”). In MC 3212, DNET Contract Services Pte Ltd (“the Respondent”) claimed against the Applicant for $44,265 for work done pursuant to four variation orders (“the Contracts”) entered between the Respondent and the Applicant under which the Respondent provided renovation services at the Applicant’s office premises. The Applicant’s defence was that the Contracts were invalid as they were signed by one Maricel Malazarte Cantero (“Ms Maricel”), who was one of the Applicant’s secretarial staff and had no authority to enter into the Contracts. In return, the Applicant counterclaimed against the Respondent for the sum of $22,540, being the costs incurred by the Applicant for having to engage another contractor as a result of the Respondent’s negligence in failing to ensure that the building and fire plans were submitted to the Fire Safety & Shelter Department (“FSSD”).

In MC 3212, Ms Maricel testified but the managing director of the Applicant, Mr Song, did not. Tay DJ held that Ms Maricel had the actual authority to enter into the Contracts on behalf of the Applicant, and since the Contracts were performed, the Applicant was obliged to pay the Respondent the contractual sum of $44,265. Furthermore, Tay DJ dismissed the Applicant’s counterclaim on the grounds that: (1) the Respondent was under no contractual obligation to submit the building and fire plans to the FSSD, and (2) in any event, the Applicant did not properly plead the particulars of its claim in the tort of negligence, and did not adduce any evidence of loss or damage suffered.

On 6 December 2018, the Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against DJ Tay’s decision in MC 3212 which is the subject of this hearing. The preliminary issue to be decided is whether such an application is required. As at 6 December 2018, s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, Rev Ed 2007) (“SCJA”) states as follow: (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other written law, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a District Court or Magistrate’s Court – (a) in any case where the amount in dispute, or the value of the subject-matter, at the hearing before that District Court or Magistrate’s Court (excluding interest and costs) exceeds $50,000 or such other amount as may be specified by an order...