Mohammed Akhtar and Others v Schneider and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Warren Khoo L H J
• Judgment Date: 02 April 1996
• Neutral Citation: [1996] SGHC 60
• Docket Number: Small Claims Tribunal Appeal No 12
• Date: 02 April 1996
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1996
• Plaintiff Counsel: Samuel Chacko and Sham Chee Keat (Manjit & Partners)
• Citation: [1996] SGHC 60
• Defendant Counsel: Susan Tang (Francis Khoo & Lin)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether monetary jurisdiction determined by quantum of claim or value of underlying contract,Rescission of contract on ground of misrepresentation,Jurisdiction,Courts and Jurisdiction,Small Claims Tribunal,Monetary jurisdiction,Claim in contract

This is an appeal from a decision of the learned referee of a Small Claims Tribunal. The appellants contend that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim.

For the purpose of this appeal, the facts can be very shortly stated. Although there were two persons named as claimants in the title of the proceedings below, it appears that only the first respondent, Mr Schneider, took any part. So I shall refer to him alone. On 8 August 1995 Mr Schneider bought what was described as a semi-antique hand-knotted carpet of a Shah Abbasi floral design from the appellants (the sellers) at the price of $10,000. At the time of the purchase, Mr Schneider saw that there was a small repair patch of about a square centimeter. He asked the sellers whether there were other repairs. He was assured that there were only a couple of others of about the same size. This was to be expected in a semi-antique carpet. On that assurance, Mr Schneider agreed to buy the carpet. He paid the price by two cheques of $5,000 each, one dated the date of the purchase and the other dated a month later, 8 September 1995. Two weeks later, on his return from a business trip, Mr Schneider discovered that there was a repair as big as a man`s hand, and he also noticed a few worn patches. He was unhappy. He went back to the sellers to try to sort things out. But they were not helpful. So he decided to stop payment on the post-dated cheque. On 19 September 1995, he lodged a claim with the tribunal, seeking to return the carpet and to claim back the $5,000 which he had paid by the first cheque. On 18 October 1995, the claim came before the learned referee. After hearing the parties, the learned referee accepted that a case of misrepresentation had been made out. He ordered the sellers to return the $5,000 paid, and the purchaser to return the carpet.

The sellers had submitted that the claim exceeded the tribunal`s jurisdiction. They pointed out that the invoice was for $10,000. The learned referee rejected the submission. Before me, the sellers` counsel repeated their challenge to the tribunal`s jurisdiction. I think the point is well taken. Section 5(3) of the Small Claims Tribunal Act, as amended by Act 17 of 1995, reads as follows:

Except where this Act expressly provides otherwise, the jurisdiction of a tribunal shall not extend to a claim -

(a) which exceeds the prescribed limit; or

(b) after the expiration of one year from the date on which the cause of action accrued.

...