Lariza (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Bank Negara Indonesia 1946 (No 2)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 06 December 1985
• Neutral Citation: [1985] SGCA 15
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 46 of 1984
• Date: 06 December 1985
• Year: 1985
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: HC Hiew (Godwin & Co)
• Citation: [1985] SGCA 15
• Defendant Counsel: Chelva Rajah (Tan, Rajah & Cheah)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: s 36(1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 15),True construction,'Pending the appeal',Judge sitting alone as Court of Appeal,Civil Procedure,Jurisdiction to order stay of execution of judgment of Court of Appeal,Stay of execution,Jurisdiction,Judgment of Court of Appeal,Jurisdiction to grant,'Any proceedings'

(sitting alone as a Court of Appeal and delivering oral judgment): The words `any proceedings` at the commencement of s 36(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act are extremely wide, and, in my view, include the application to the Court of Appeal made by way of notice of motion dated 2 December 1985 which is to be heard on 13 January 1986. The next question is whether the circumstances in which an order under s 36(1) may be made have arisen or subsist, and there are three limbs under s 36(1). Mr Chelva Rajah submits that his application falls within the first and second limbs of that section. In my view, the application does not fall within the first limb; the order sought is not a direction incidental to the motion. There remains the second limb, and the question really turns on the true construction of the words `pending the appeal`. The Court of Appeal has delivered judgment in this appeal, but on the authorities of Re Clagett`s Estate (1882) 20 Ch D 637, 655 and Salt v Cooper (1881) 16 Ch D 544, 551, the appeal is still pending. The application therefore falls within the second limb of s 36(1) and I have jurisdiction to make the order.

The next question is whether the order applied for ought to be made. On this point, in view of what is stated in the affidavits and the fact that the application for a stay of execution of the Judgment will be heard by the Court of Appeal on 13 January 1986, I have decided as an interim injunction measure to make the order sought. There will be an order in terms of the application. The respondents will have to pay for the costs of this...