Ng Chan Teng v Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 07 September 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 148
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 4765 of 2002 (Registrar's Appeal from the Subordinate Courts
• Date: 07 September 2007
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 12 September 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Namasivayam Srinivasan (Hoh Law Corporation)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 148
• Defendant Counsel: Anparasan s/o Kamachi (KhattarWong)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether victim could recover 70% of damages assessed capped at statutory limit or only 70% of statutory limit,Courts and Jurisdiction,Tortfeasor accepting 70% liability in consent interlocutory judgment,Jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort,Section 20 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed),Statutory limit for damages,District court

7 September 2007 Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This was an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the District Court. The issue was straightforward, but it is best to set out the background to this appeal. The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for injuries suffered by him in an industrial accident on 13 November 2001. He filed his writ on 8 November 2002 in the District Court and subsequently, on 7 May 2004, obtained an interlocutory judgment based on 70% liability on the part of the defendant, with damages to be assessed. The plaintiff failed to reach an amicable settlement on the quantum of damages with the defendant. He had claimed the sum of $923,790.04 as the amount he would be entitled on the basis of 100% liability, but after taking into account his contributory negligence agreed previously at 30%, the quantified claim would be $646,653.03. The proceedings for the assessment of damages were adjourned on the application of the plaintiff to determine a preliminary point, which is the subject of this appeal. The point posed to the court was drafted in the following terms: “Whether the Plaintiff can recover a sum of $250,000.00 or a sum of $175,000.00 when a consent Interlocutory Judgment has been entered, wherein the Defendant has accepted 70% liability.” What it meant was whether the damages that the defendant has to pay would be 70% of the amount assessed or 70% of $250,000, which is the statutory limit imposed upon a District Court so that it has no jurisdiction to award damages amounting to more than $250,000. 70% of $250,000 is thus $175,000. The matter is actually academic because the assessment proceedings were adjourned. The parties ought to have proceeded with the assessment and argued this issue at the assessment itself. In short, this matter was not suitable for an application under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). The reason will be apparent in my grounds below.

2 The District Judge ruled that by reason of s 20 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed), when interlocutory judgment has been entered with an apportioned contributory negligence, the defendant is liable for his share of the blame calculated from the $250,000 limit as defined in s 2 of the Subordinate Courts Act, and not from the total sum determined at the assessment. Sections 2 and 20 are set out for ease of reference:

Interpretation

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —

"action" means a civil proceeding commenced by summons or in such other manner as may be prescribed by Rules of Court;

"commissioner for oaths" means a commissioner for oaths appointed under section 68 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322);

"District Court limit" means —

(a) in sections 26 (a) and 27, $3 million or such other amount as may be specified by an order under section 30; and

(b) in any other section, $250,000* or such other amount as may be specified by an order under section 30;

* O1 (S 333/97) — Subordinate Courts (Variation of District Court Limit) Order.

"judicial officer" means a District Judge, Magistrate, Coroner or registrar;

"Magistrate’s Court limit" means $60,000* or such other amount as may be specified by an order under section 52 (3);

*O 2 (S 263/99) — Subordinate Courts (Variation of Magistrate’s Court Limit) Order

"prescribed" means prescribed by Rules of Court;

"Public Prosecutor" includes a Deputy Public Prosecutor;

"registrar" means the registrar of the subordinate courts and includes a deputy registrar;

"Rules of Court" means Rules of Court made under this Act and includes forms;

"seal" includes stamp.

Jurisdiction in actions of contract and tort

20. —(1) A District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try any action founded on contract or tort where —

(a) the debt, demand or damage claimed does not exceed the District Court limit, whether on balance of account or otherwise; or

(b) there is no claim for money, and the remedy or relief sought in the action is in respect of a subject-matter the value of which does not exceed the District Court limit.

(2) A District Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try any action where the debt or demand claimed consists of a balance not exceeding the District Court limit after a set-off of any debt or demand claimed or recoverable by the defendant from the plaintiff, being a set-off admitted by the plaintiff in the particulars of his claim or demand.

The District Judge held in his grounds of decision at [7] that “the language of section 20 is plain and obvious, and the answer was clear. As the District Court limit is set at $250,000, 70% of $250,000 must mean that the Plaintiff’s claim is now limited to $175,000. In my view, to adopt the Plaintiff’s interpretation would lead to uncertainty as to whether such civil claims ought to be commenced in the High Court or District Court.” The judge then cited Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed [1999] 4 SLR 716 in support of its interpretation of s 20 of the Subordinate Courts Act. That case, however, concerned the question whether, in determining a right to appeal under s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), interests and costs should be included in calculating the cut-off limit. Section 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act provides as follows:

21. —(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act or any other written law, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a District Court or Magistrate’s Court in any suit or action for the recovery of immovable property or in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject-matter exceeds $50,000 or such other amount as may be specified by an order made under subsection (3) or with the leave of a District Court, a Magistrate’s Court or the High Court if under that amount.

The Court there ruled at [24] that the phrase “amount in dispute” in s 21 did not include non-contractual interests and costs. Hence, apart from the point that the two provisions in question (viz, s 20 of the Subordinate Courts Act and s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act) are different, nonetheless, the High Court in Abdul Rahman bin Shariff considered the amount actually awarded, as opposed to the statutory limit, as the relevant subject matter.

3 Reverting to the appeal before me, I am of the opinion that the sequence of the proceedings is important. In an action such as the present, the questions of liability and damages are ordinarily heard at the trial of the action. Such trials in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate courts are often split so that the question of liability is determined separately from the assessment of damages, which would not be necessary if liability was not established at all. Often, the parties consent to an interlocutory judgment...