Jasmine Gowrimani d/o Daniel v Housing and Development Board

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jonathan Toh Jun Hian
• Judgment Date: 20 October 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 250
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Originating Summons No 276 of 2021, HC/RAS 12/2023
• Hearing Date: 03 January 2023,23 June 2023,08 September 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 250
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Kam Su Cheun Aurill (Legal Clinic LLC)
• Subject Matter: Courts And Jurisdiction,Jurisdiction,Judicial Review,Whether plaintiff is seeking judicial review of defendant's decisions,District Court,Whether District Court has jurisdiction over the matter
• Published date: 03 November 2023

District Judge Jonathan Toh Jun Hian: Introduction

On 7 December 2021, the Appellant (“Ms Daniel”) commenced the present Originating Summons (“OSS 276”) against the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) to contest her eviction from the flat at [address redacted] (the “Flat”). She sought the following orders: 1. The eviction of the Applicant from the flat on 27 October 2021 be set aside. 2. The notices to collect items left at the flat dated 27 Oct 2021 and 9 Nov 2021 be set aside. 3. That the recovery and/or possession of the flat by the Respondents on 27 October 2021 is set aside. 4. In the alternative, the Plaintiff be granted on extension of time to deliver vacant possession of the flat and in the interim the Applicant is at liberty to access the flat and its contents without interference from the Respondents and/or their servants and/or agents. 5. Damages. 6. Costs

On 8 September 2023, three summonses were heard together before me. DC/SUM 2059/2022 (“SUM 2059”) was Ms Daniel’s application for interim access to the Flat to collect documents and materials necessary for the proper disposal of the issues arising out of the compulsory acquisition of the Flat. DC/SUM 3889/2022 (“SUM 3889”) was Ms Daniel’s application to (i) deem her service of OS 276 on HDB as good and proper service; (ii) strike out the 1st affidavit of Chokkalingam Ponnarasi filed on 15 November 2022 on behalf of HDB (“1CP”); (iii) set aside the service of HDB’s 1st Affidavit; or (iv) obtain an extension of time for her to file and serve an affidavit in reply. DC/SUM 3892/2022 (“SUM 3892”) was HDB’s application to strike out OS 276 on grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, and/or was an abuse of process. HDB’s fundamental point was that Ms Daniel was seeking judicial review of HDB’s decisions, something that the District Court had no jurisdiction over.

After hearing parties on 8 September 2023, I granted SUM 3892 and struck out OSS 276 in its entirety and awarded costs of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements in favour of HDB. I also dismissed SUM 2059 and 3889 and with costs fixed at $1,000 and $3,000 inclusive of disbursements respectively.

Ms Daniel has appealed against all of these orders, and I set out my full grounds of decision below.

Ms Daniel’s request for an adjournment of the 8 September 2023 hearing

Before I delve into the facts, I first deal with a point of procedure. One day before the 8 September 2023 hearing, Ms Daniel sent an email to the court requesting for a three-week adjournment of the hearing.

After hearing parties, I refused Ms Daniel’s request. In my view, the substantive hearing of the three summonses had been significantly delayed and Ms Daniel had not provided a good reason to warrant a further adjournment of the hearing.

I first took conduct of this matter at a directions hearing on 3 January 2023. I gave detailed directions for parties to file their reply and response affidavits for all three summonses, the latest of which was slated for 14 March 2023. Parties were to file written submissions by 28 March 2023 and the three summonses were fixed for a special hearing on 11 April 2023 at 9.30 am.

On 22 March 2023, Ms Daniel made a written request for significant extensions of time. Revised directions were issued for Ms Daniel to file her affidavit by 28 April 2023, and for HDB to file a reply by 12 May 2023. Submissions were to be filed by 2 June 2023, with the special hearing re-fixed to 23 June 2023 at 2.30 pm.

Ms Daniel made a further request on 2 May 2023 for a further extension of time to file her affidavit by 17 May 2023, on the basis that the revised timelines would not affect the hearing date on 23 June 2023. Her request was again granted.

As Ms Daniel did not file her affidavit, HDB duly filed their written submissions on 19 June 2023. No other papers were filed by Ms Daniel. Instead, in the three days leading up to the hearing of 23 June 2023, she sent in an email and filed a request to adjourn the hearing on the basis that she had made an application for legal aid.

At the hearing on 23 June 2023, and despite the fact that Ms Daniel had already been given significant leeway to file her affidavit and submissions and be ready for the hearing, a final courtesy was extended to her. The hearing was adjourned for a long period of 11 weeks for Ms Daniel to appoint lawyers or alternatively be ready for hearing. I warned the parties in no uncertain terms that it would be the final adjournment and that the substantive hearing would proceed at the next hearing fixed for a special date on 8 September 2023 at 2.30 pm.

Despite being given a further 11 weeks to get her case in order, Ms Daniel was not ready. I did not find any of her reasons sufficient to justify a further delay of the hearing. First, she said that the Legal Aid Bureau did not respond to her and she was unable to obtain other legal representation. She argued that it was important for her to be represented as she had formed a jaundiced view of judicial officers from the State Courts having conduct of her case. In my view, this was not a good reason for further delay. She had already been warned to be prepared for the substantive hearing to proceed. Despite that, she failed to file any reply affidavit or written submissions, and was not ready for the hearing. Her view of the judicial officers was not relevant to that failure. Second, she asserted that she was ill and took five weeks or so to recover. She provided no documentary evidence (such as medical certificates or doctors’ letters) for this assertion. In any case, she did not explain why the six weeks after she recovered was not sufficient time for her to be ready. On a related note, Ms Daniel claimed that she had been in poor health since she had a medical procedure in June 2021, which contributed to her inability to be prepared for the hearing. This was a period of some more than two years. As such, it did not appear to me that a further adjournment of three weeks would have changed matters.

On the other hand, HDB would have incurred time and costs to be ready each time the matter was fixed for substantive hearing. As none of Ms Daniel’s reasons justified any further delay in the matter, I directed the hearing to proceed.

Background Facts The purchase of the Flat and the 2009 NOI

As the dispute between Ms Daniel and HDB relating to the Flat has a storied history, it would be useful to set out the key background facts.

Ms Daniel purchased the Flat on 1 April 2001 and obtained a loan from HDB to do so.¹

In 2003, Ms Daniel applied for and was granted a deferment of loan instalment payments for six months from May to October 2003. On 1 November 2003, her payment obligations to HDB resumed.²

In 2004, Ms Daniel applied for and was granted a second six-month deferment of her payment obligations, which resumed on 1 August 2004.³

On 12 November 2004, Ms Daniel was granted a temporary six-month reduction of her monthly mortgage payments. She was granted a further temporary six-month reduction on 12 November 2005.⁴

On 29 September 2009, HDB served a Notice of Intention to Compulsorily Acquire the Flat (the “2009 NOI”) under s 56(1)(k) of the Housing and Development Act (2004 Rev Ed) in force at the time (the “HDB Act”) for failing to keep up with her mortgage payments.⁵ Ms Daniel objected by letter dated 27 October 2009. She did not deny that her mortgage payments were in arrears, but explained that she had difficult personal circumstances.⁶ HDB responded by letter dated 17 November 2009 to allow Ms Daniel time to sell the Flat in the open market, or alternatively, to keep the Flat by paying $1,200 per month from December 2009.⁷

Discontinuing the 2009 NOI and issuing the 2017 NOI

On 4 August 2016, HDB issued Ms Daniel a letter to discontinue the compulsory acquisition and inform her that she was in arrears of $63,123.87. HDB made a written demand for Ms Daniel to either pay the arrears by 30 August 2016 or enter into an instalment plan for $2,100 per month.⁸

Ms Daniel did not pay the arrears and no alternative agreement was reached. HDB issued a fresh Notice dated 27 June 2017 for the compulsory acquisition of the Flat pursuant to s 56(1)(k) of the HDB Act (the “2017 NOI”).⁹ According to HDB, at this time, Ms Daniel was in arrears of $72,024.37, or 6 years and 2 months’ worth of mortgage arrears.¹⁰

By an exchange of correspondence between 15 August 2017 and 1 June 208, Ms Daniel objected to the 2017 NOI and HDB rejected her objections.¹¹

Ms Daniel’s statutory appeal to MND

Ms Daniel then engaged the appeal process under HDB Act, s 56(6) for an appeal to the Minister of National Development. The initial deadline for the appeal was 1 June 2018. Between 4 June 2018 and 4 July 2019, Ms Daniel sought multiple extensions of time from the Ministry of National Development (“MND”) to submit her appeal, which were granted. The final deadline granted was 22 July 2019. While Ms Daniel requested for a further extension of time after that, it was not granted.¹² On 31 July 2019, MND, having received no further submissions from Ms Daniel, requested HDB to submit its representations, and allowed Ms Daniel to respond 28 days later. HDB did so by its letter of 27 August 2019.¹³ Ms Daniel responded by her letter dated 10 October 2019. She alleged that HDB had entrapped her and asked that MND mediate and work out a payment plan.¹⁴ MND attempted to do so. Between 31 October 2019 to 17 January 2020, correspondence was exchanged between HDB, MND and Ms Daniel relating to payment plan proposals. No agreement was reached. Eventually, by letter dated 17 January 2020, MND rejected Ms Daniel’s statutory appeal.¹⁵ In the letter, MND noted that: Ms Daniel’s proposed payment plan would not settle her arrears (which by May 2020 would be $106,254) within a...