Kawakami (S) Pte Ltd v Fudo Construction Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Sek Keong J
• Judgment Date: 26 November 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 91
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 162 of 1990
• Date: 26 November 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1990
• Plaintiff Counsel: Low Tiang Hock (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 91
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Yeow Choo (May Oh & Wee)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Judgments and orders,Whether order was a nullity or ambiguous,Civil Procedure,O 24 r 2(5) Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Variation,Application to vary previous court orders

This was an application by the claimants under O 24 r 17 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 for revocation and/or variation of two interlocutory orders of court. The said rule provides as follows:

Any order made under this Order (including an order made on appeal) may, on sufficient cause being shown. be revoked or varied by a subsequent order or direction of the Court made or given at or before the trial of the cause or matter in con nection with which the original order was made.

The orders of court were the order of Lai Kew Chai J made on 16 March 1990 (the first order) and the order of Yong Pung How J made on 27 July 1990 (the second order). The first order ordered as follows:

(1) the parties exchange the bundles of documents within 14 days from the date of order made hereof;

(2) there be inspection of documents within 28 days from the date of order made hereof; and

(3) the costs of this application be referred to the arbitrator for his decision.

The second order ordered as follows:

(1) the claimants` action be dismissed with costs including the costs of this application to be taxed unless the claimants do within twenty-one (21) days from the date of order made hereon serve the bundles of documents on the respondents pursuant to the order of court dated 16 March 1990;

(2) the claimants do file an affidavit within twenty-one (21) days from the date of order made hereon verifying that all documents have been served pursuant to the said order of court dated 16 March 1990; and

(3) the costs of this application to be referred to the arbitrator for his decision.

The application before me was to revoke and/or vary the two orders in the following manner:

(1) that in place of the said orders the parties to the arbitration proceedings be ordered to serve on each other a list of documents relating to the issues in the arbitration proceedings within 60 days from the date of the order to be made herein and file an affidavit verifying such lists;

(2) that in place of the said orders there be inspection of documents within 30 days of the delivery of the reslists;

(3) that the parties after the exchange of copies of bundles of documents be at liberty to apply for such further and better lists of documents as may be considered relevant to the arbitration proceedings;

(4) that the order of Mr Justice Lai Kew Chai made on 16 March 1990 and the order of Mr Justice Yong Pung How made on 27 July 1990 be revoked; ...

I dismissed the application after hearing counsel for the parties. The claimants have appealed.

The material facts leading to this application are set out in the grounds of judgment given by Yong Pung How J on...