J H Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 26 October 1988
• Neutral Citation: [1988] SGHC 103
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1988
• Published date: 02 February 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Loo Dip Seng
• Defendant Counsel: 2nd defendants not represented
• Citation: [1988] SGHC 103

Judgment delivered after hearing further arguments

In a written judgment delivered by me on 20 January 1988, I dismissed the appeal of the 2nd Defendants ("the Appellants) against the decision of the Registrar dismissing the Appellants' application to set aside an order for substituted service of notice of the Plaintiffs' writ outside the jurisdiction.

Pursuant to Section 34(2) of the Court of Judicature Act (Cap.322) the solicitors for the Appellants applied orally for further arguments. Before I acceded to the application, I requested the solicitors to let me know what the further arguments would be. Such arguments were submitted to me in a letter dated 4 February 1t88. Having read the written submissions, I agreed to hear further arguments. The solicitors for the Appellants were duly informed by the Registrar on 11 February 1988 that the date for the hearing of further arguments was 16 May 1988.

On 10 May 1988, the solicitors for the Plaintiffs also served a notice on the Registrar that their clients wished to be heard further on my decision. A summary of such arguments in writing was enclosed with the said letter.

On 16 May 1988, counsel for both parties appeared before me. Counsel for the Appellants informed the court that she had made an application to be discharged as solicitors as the Appellants had not given her any instructions in spite of numerous reminders. She then applied to adjourn the hearing sine die with liberty to restore so that the Appellants could be given an opportunity to put forward their further arguments, by such other counsel as might be appointed in her place.

I granted the adjournment in terms of her application but only after I had informed her I might be under an obligation to hear the further arguments of counsel for the Plaintiffs even if the Appellants failed to appear by counsel should the hearing be restored.

On 11 July 1988, the solicitors for the Appellants obtained, a formal order of court discharging themselves as solicitors.

On 13 July 1988, the solicitors for the Plaintiffs applied to the Registrar for restoration of the hearing of further arguments. The application was acceded to and the matter came before me on 14 September 1988. Counsel for the Plaintiffs was present but not counsel for the Appellants. Two problems arose as a result.

The first was whether I should hear counsel for the Plaintiffs in the absence of counsel for the Appellants. I could not see why I should not since counsel for the Appellants had been informed by me on 16 May 1988 that I might do so in those circumstances.

The second was whether or not the Plaintiffs were entitled to make further arguments before me since they had not applied for further arguments until 10 May 1988 when it was well outside the statutory period of 4 days prescribed by Section 34(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322). In my view, there was nothing in that section to prevent ray hearing further arguments from the Plaintiffs for the following reason. Section 34(2) contemplates a situation where a party...