Lee Chye Chong v SBS Transit Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Audrey Lim J
• Judgment Date: 10 June 2021
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 225 of 2021

Lee Chye Chong and others

and

SBS Transit Ltd

[2021] SGHC 139

Audrey Lim J

Originating Summons No 225 of 2021

General Division of the High Court

Abuse of Process — Inconsistent positions — Applicant seeking to transfer proceedings to High Court (General Division) from Magistrate's Court — Consent order stating applicant's case as “test case” — Whether consent order contemplated trial only in State Courts — Whether applicant resiling from terms in consent order

Courts and Jurisdiction — High Court — Transfer of proceedings from Magistrate's Court to High Court (General Division) — Applicant seeking to transfer proceedings to High Court (General Division) from Magistrate's Court — Whether damages likely to exceed jurisdictional limit of Magistrate's Court — Section 54B(1) State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Courts and Jurisdiction — High Court — Transfer of proceedings from Magistrate's Court to High Court (General Division) — Applicant seeking to transfer proceedings to High Court (General Division) from Magistrate's Court — Whether it was “test case” — Section 54B(1) State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Courts and Jurisdiction — High Court — Transfer of proceedings from Magistrate's Court to High Court (General Division) — Applicant seeking to transfer proceedings to High Court (General Division) from Magistrate's Court — Whether there was “important question of law” — Section 54B(1) State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Courts and Jurisdiction — High Court — Transfer of proceedings from Magistrate's Court to High Court (General Division) — Applicant seeking to transfer proceedings to High Court (General Division) from Magistrate's Court — Whether transfer of proceedings would cause prejudice to defendant — Section 54B(1) State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Words and Phrases — “Important question of law” — Section 54B(1) State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Words and Phrases — “Test case” — Section 54B(1) State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Held, allowing the application:

(1) It was not an abuse of process for Chua, to make the present application. Chua was not resiling from the consent order. The consent order showed that parties agreed to have MC 13887 as the test case, on the terms that the court's decision, determination and findings in MC 13887 which were common to the other MC Suits would be binding on the plaintiffs in the other MC Suits. But parties did not agree to MC 13887 being tried only in the State Courts: at [24] to [26].

(2) The court could grant a transfer of proceedings from the Magistrate's Court to the High Court if one of the grounds under s 54B(1) of the SCA was satisfied. The court retained a discretion as to whether to transfer the case, balancing the interests of the parties: at [28].

(3) An important question of law under s 54B(1) of the SCA should be a question of law that affected more than the immediate interests of parties, or be of some public importance, or a point of law which affected other cases, though it did not need to be difficult or complex: at [30].

(4) MC 13887 raised important questions of law on how the EA was to be interpreted, such as whether a “rest day” under s 36(1) of the EA could be scheduled such that an employee could be made to work for 12 consecutive days, and whether an employee could be required to work in excess of the prescribed limit of hours of work under s 38(2)(f) of the EA. These questions affected the interests of employees providing essential services in Singapore, and affected how their employment contracts were to be structured: at [31] and [32].

(5) A “test case” under s 54B(1) SCA might mean: (a) a lawsuit brought to establish an important legal principle or right; or (b) an action selected from several suits based on the same facts and evidence, raising the same question of law, and having a common plaintiff or a common defendant: at [34] and [36].

(6) MC 13887 satisfied both definitions of a “test case”. It raised important questions of law, and was also a case selected from several suits based on common facts, raising the same questions of law and with a common defendant. Contrary to SBS's argument, there was no requirement under s 54B(1) SCA that a “test case” had to raise case management concerns in order to be transferred to the High Court: at [37] to [39].

(7) However, MC 13887 did not satisfy the ground of “other sufficient reason” under s 54B of the SCA. There was no evidence that Chua's damages in MC 13887 would exceed the jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Chua could not rely on the aggregate sum of all the MC Suits for an application under s 54B of the SCA, as all the MC Suits remained as separate cases: at [42].

(8) Although there was some delay in Chua's bringing the present application, there was no prejudice to SBS. SBS itself was prepared to defer the trial in the State Courts, as it had asked to vacate the original trial dates because its lead counsel was involved in another trial. SBS had not articulated what real prejudice it would face if MC 13887 were transferred to the General Division of the High Court and later trial dates were allocated: at [48] and [52].

Case(s) referred to

CEPU v Australian Postal Corp [2010] FMCA 461 (distd)

Compania Merabello San Nicholas SA, Re [1973] Ch 75; [1972] 3 All ER 448 (refd)

Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union Inc v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [2010] NZEMPC 56 (refd)

First Choice Capital Fund Ltd v First Canadian Capital Corp [1999] SJ No 333 (refd)

Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng [2010] 2 SLR 1015 (folld)

Lim Choon Seng v Lim Poh Kwee [2020] 5 MLJ 587 (refd)

Ng Djoni v Miranda Joseph Jude [2018] 5 SLR 670 (distd)

Patterson v Ellis [1957] 1 WLR 857 (refd)

Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd v Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin [2012] 3 SLR 1003 (folld)

Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng [2005] 2 SLR(R) 546; [2005] 2 SLR 546 (distd)

Tan Kee Huat v Lim Kui Lin [2013] 1 SLR 765 (refd)

Tan Kok Ing v Tan Swee Meng [2003] 1 SLR(R) 657; [2003] 1 SLR 657 (folld)

TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) [2015] 2 SLR 540 (refd)

Facts

This was an application to transfer Magistrate's Court Suit No 13887 of 2019 (“MC 13887”) commenced by the fifth plaintiff (“Chua”) against the defendant (“SBS”) to the General Division of the High Court pursuant to s 54B of the State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) (“SCA”).

Chua commenced MC 13887 against SBS for breach of contract and various provisions of the Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed) (“EA”). Twelve other plaintiffs commenced similar proceedings against SBS (collectively, “the MC Suits”). Chua's claims included, inter alia, that SBS had breached s 36 of the EA in not giving Chua a rest day, that SBS had underpaid Chua in contravention of ss 37(3), 38(4) and 88(4) of the EA, and that SBS had made Chua work overtime in contravention of s 38(1) of the EA. SBS denied Chua's claims. SBS's defence was that an employee undertaking an “essential service” set out in Pt III of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) might be required to exceed the prescribed work hours.

On 4 March 2020, the State Courts suggested that MC 13887 be heard as a test case, while the 12 other MC Suits were held in abeyance. SBS's lawyer set out the terms concerning MC 13887 as a test case in “Annex A” of their 27 April 2020 letter. On 30 April 2020, Chua's lawyer replied, agreeing to the terms in Annex A. On 8 May 2020, the State Courts made a consent order, setting out parties' agreement for MC 13887 to be heard as a test case.

Subsequently, on 11 February 2021, Chua's lawyer wrote to SBS's lawyer, seeking SBS's consent to have MC 13887 heard in the High Court as there were important questions of law raised in the suit. SBS was not agreeable. On 22 February 2021, Chua's lawyer informed the State Courts that Chua would apply to transfer MC 13887 to the High Court. The present application was filed on 10 March 2021.

Chua argued that MC 13887 involved important questions of law, and it was a test case, or it should be transferred for some “other sufficient reason” as the total value of the MC Suits collectively exceeded the District Court's limit. SBS submitted that the application to transfer was an abuse of court process as the parties had agreed to MC 13887 being a test case premised on Chua's claim being tried in the State Courts. MC 13887 also did not satisfy any of the limbs under s 54B(1) of the SCA, and SBS would be prejudiced because Chua's application was made late in the day when the trial was around the corner and a transfer of proceedings to the General Division of the High Court would delay the trial further.

Legislation referred to

Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67, 2000 Rev Ed) Pt III, First Schedule

Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 8, 36, 36(1), 37(3), 38, 38(1), 38(2)(f), 38(4), 88(4)

Rules of Court (2006 Rev Ed) O 14 r 12

Securities and Futures Act (Cap 289, 2006 Rev Ed)

State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) s 54B(1) (consd); s 54B

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed) s 53

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) s 39

Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r 8.02

Ravi s/o Madasamy (Carson Law Chambers) for the applicants;

Davinder Singh SC, Jaikanth Shankar, Hanspreet Singh Sachdev, Stella Ng Yu XinandChua Shu Yuan Delvin (Davinder Singh Chambers LLC) for the respondent.

10 June 2021

Judgment reserved.

Audrey Lim J:

1 This originating summons (“the OS”) is an application to transfer Magistrate's Court Suit No 13887/2019 (“MC 13887”) commenced by the fifth plaintiff (“Chua”) against the defendant (“SBS”) in the Magistrate's Court, to the General Division of the High Court (“High Court”) pursuant to s 54B of the State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) (“the SCA”). This case deals with the issues of what is meant by an “important” question of law and a “test case” within s 54B(1) of the SCA.

Backg...