Herbs and Spices Trading Post Pte Ltd v Deo Silver (Pte) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 11 December 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 108
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 108
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Yap (Peter Yap & Co)
• Date: 11 December 1990
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 83 of 1989
• Plaintiff Counsel: Steven Ang (Godwin & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Subject Matter: Appeals,Civil Procedure,Power and jurisdiction of registrar of subordinate courts,O 32 & O 55 Rules of the Subordinate Courts 1986,Right of appeal from decision of district judge,ss 47 & 69 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321),ss 21 & 34 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)

This was an appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants against the decision of the district judge allowing an appeal against the decision of the deputy registrar striking out the amended defence and counterclaim under O18 r 18(1) of the Subordinate Court Rules 1986. I allowed the appeal in part.

Counsel for the defendants took a preliminary objection to this appeal. He submitted that the plaintiffs had no right of appeal on the ground that the decision of the district judge was final as between the parties by reason of O 55 r 1(5). That rule provides that:

1(1) An appeal shall lie to a Judge in Chambers from any judgment, order or decision of the Registrar.

(2) The appeal shall be brought by serving on every other party to the proceedings in which the judgment, order or decision was given or made a notice in Form 111B to attend before the Judge on a day specified in the notice or on such other day as may be directed.

(3) Unless the Court otherwise orders, the notice must be filed within 5 days after the judgment, order or decision appealed against was given or made and served not less than 2 clear days before the day fixed for hearing the appeal.

(4) Except so far as the Court may otherwise direct, an appeal under this Rule shall not operate as a stay of the proceedings in which the appeal is brought.

(5) The decision of the Judge in Chambers under this Rule shall be final.

(2) There shall be no appeal from a Judge in any interlocutory application except with the leave of the Judge.

I have in my judgment in Goh Siam Yong v [1989] 3 MLJ 406 decided that if r 1(5) had the effect of denying a party the right to appeal to the High Court, it was ultra vires s 47 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) read with s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) [1989] 3 MLJ cxxiv. Counsel, however, was not aware of another case note, arguing to the contrary, by Mr Tan Kay Kheng published in [1990] 1 MLJ lxxxvii. Counsel contended that Mr Khoo` s analysis of the relevant statutory provisions was correct and that mine was wrong.

The argument of Mr Khoo is set out in the following paragraph of his case note:

Section 21 [of Cap 322] clearly allows for the right of appeal from ` ... a decision of a district court ... in any suit or action ...` . It seems to me that the ` decision` envisaged by legislature must obviously refer to those decisions which the district court is competent to make, as empowered by Part IV of the

...