Harun Bin Ghalib v Pang Yoke Teen and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lynette Yap
• Judgment Date: 20 February 2008
• Neutral Citation: [2008] SGDC 25
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 01 April 2008
• Year: 2008
• Plaintiff Counsel: Soloman Richard (Soloman Richard & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Charles Lim (Donaldson & Burkinshaw),Kuah Boon Theng (Legal Clinic LLC)
• Citation: [2008] SGDC 25

20 February 2008

Deputy Registrar Lynette Yap:

Background

1. This is a medical negligence case brought by the Plaintiff against Dr Pang Yoke Teen (the “1^st Defendant”) and National University Hospital (Singapore) Pte Ltd (the “2^nd Defendant”). The 1^st Defendant had performed an endoscopic sinus surgery on the Plaintiff at the 2^nd Defendant’s Hospital, following which the Plaintiff allegedly suffered from severe damage to the right eye, namely exotropia with diplopia and right eye strabismus.

2. The Plaintiff filed the Reply to the Defence on 12 October 2005. Thereafter, there were several Court Dispute Resolution (“CDR”) sessions at the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (“PDRC”) before a settlement judge. The last CDR session was on 28 June 2007. In letters dated 3 and 16 July 2007, the 2^nd Defendant’s counsel wrote to PDRC, contending that based on Justice Lai’s decision in the High Court in Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline [2007] SGHC 58, the matter was deemed discontinued and confirmation was sought if parties needed to appear at the next CDR which was scheduled for 30 August 2007. The CDR was subsequently vacated. The Plaintiff filed a Summons for Directions on 10 September 2007.

3. The Defendants objected to the Summons for Directions. They contended that attendances at CDR did not constitute a “step or proceeding in the action, cause or matter that appears from the records maintained by the Court” and pursuant to Order 21, Rule 2(6) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed.) (“ROC”), the matter would have been deemed discontinued as of 12 October 2006, which was one year from the time the Plaintiff filed his Reply to the Defence on 12 October 2005.

4. I reserved my decision. I gave my decision on 11 January 2008. In my brief oral grounds, I informed parties I was adopting the approach in Tamilselvan s/o Renganatha v Singapore Bus Services Ltd [2002] SGDC 352 where it was stated that a CDR session constitutes a step or proceeding in the action. Tamilselvan s/o Renganatha also clearly states that the record of a CDR session, unlike an out of court mediation, appears in records maintained by the Courts. Accordingly, Order 21, Rule 2(6) ROC had no application in the present case. I proceeded to hear the Summons for Directions and gave directions for the further conduct of the case including timelines for the exchange of the list of documents, the affidavits of examination-in-chief of the witnesses and the setting down of the matter for trial. I further ordered that costs be in the cause. Both the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants have appealed against my decision. I now give my detailed reasons.

Order 21, Rule 2(6) ROC

5. The only issue before me was whether the attendances at CDR would constitute a “step or proceeding in the action, cause or matter that appears from the records maintained by the Court” pursuant to Order 21, Rule 2(6) ROC. If the Court were to find that the CDR attendances in this case did not constitute a step or proceeding in the action, then, as there was no other step or proceeding in the action since 12 October 2005, this matter would be deemed discontinued and no further action could be taken without the Court granting leave to reinstate the action.

6. Order 21, Rule 2(6) ROC reads:

(6) Subject to paragraph (6A), if no party to an action or a cause or matter has, for more than one year (or such extended period as the Court may allow under paragraph 6(B)) taken any step or proceeding in the action, cause or matter that appears from records maintained by the Court, the action, cause or matter is deemed to have been discontinued.

Nature of CDR attendances

7. The power of the Court to hold pre-trial conferences is provided in Order 34A, Rule 2 ROC which reads:

2-(1) Without prejudice to Rule 1, at any time before any action or proceedings are tried, the Court may direct parties to attend a pre-trial conference relating to the matters arising in the action or proceedings.

(2) At the pre-trial conference, the Court may consider any matter including the possibility of settlement of all or any of the issues in the action or proceedings and require the parties to furnish the Court with any such information as it thinks fit, and may also give all such directions as appear to be necessary or desirable for securing the just, expeditious and economical disposal of the action or proceedings.

(3) The Court, having made directions under Rule 2(2) or Rule 3 may either on its own motion or upon the application of any party, if any party defaults in complying with any such directions, dismiss such action or proceedings or strike out the defence or counterclaim or enter judgment or make such order as it thinks fit.

(4) Any judgment or order made under Rule 2(3) may be set aside by the Court, on the application of the party, on such terms, if any, as it thinks just.’

(5) [Deleted by S 283/07]

(6) At any time during the pre-trial conference where the parties are agreeable to a settlement of some or all of the matters in dispute in the action or proceedings, the Court may enter judgment in the action or proceedings or make such order to give effect to the settlement.

8. The Plaintiff’s counsel contended that parties had submitted to CDR sessions since 16 August 2005 when parties were first informed to attend a CDR session at the PDRC. He stated that these CDR sessions, convened for the purposes of settlement, were pre-trial conferences convened under the powers of Order 34A, Rule 2 ROC as part of the proceedings in the Subordinate Courts.

9. In the case of Tamilselvan s/o Renganatha, District Judge Foo Tuat Yien stated:

The last step or proceeding on record is the last Court Dispute Resolution (CDR) on 8.2.01, when the settlement judge terminated mediation. Both parties have agreed that a CDR session is a step...