Ong Wui Swoon v Ong Wui Teck and another matter

• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 07 August 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 157
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 157
• Docket Number: Suit No 385 of 2011 (Registrar’s Appeal No 54 of 2014) and Originating Summons No 1187 of 2013 (Registrar’s Appeal No 72 of 2014)
• Hearing Date: 03 March 2014,03 February 2014,19 May 2014
• Published date: 07 August 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Carolyn Tan (Tan & Au LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Ong Wui Teck in person.
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Extension of time,Costs

Woo Bih Li J: Background

Ong Wui Swoon (“the Sister”) and Ong Wui Teck (“the Brother”) are two out of six siblings. The Sister had alleged that the Brother had failed in his duty as an administrator of their late father Ong Thiat Gan’s estate (“the Estate”) to render an accurate account of its assets. She therefore sued the Brother in Suit No 385 of 2011 asking him to render a proper account of all the Estate’s assets, and also to pay damages for his alleged breach of duty. The Sister also asserted a beneficial interest in the sale proceeds of a private property, which she claimed the Brother held on trust for their father.

On 30 October 2012, I delivered my written judgment (which was reported in Ong Wui Swoon v Ong Wui Teck [2013] 1 SLR 733 (“the Main Judgment”)). I decided that the Brother had failed to give a proper account of the assets of the Estate. I ordered the Registrar of the Supreme Court (“the Registrar”) to conduct an inquiry to determine various matters as set out at [143] of the Main Judgment. For completeness, I would mention that I dismissed the Sister’s claim for a beneficial interest in the sale proceeds of the private property mentioned above.

The inquiry was conducted before Assistant Registrar Shaun Leong (“AR Leong”) in TA 13 of 2013. On 24 September 2014, AR Leong decided that the Estate was in fact positive in the sum of $15,756.47. He ordered the Brother to pay the Sister $1,313 as her one-twelfth share of the Estate.

AR Leong also ordered that costs in TA 13 of 2013, ie, the costs of the inquiry, be agreed or taxed. This order on costs was made by consent.

Subsequently, a dispute arose as to who was liable for the costs of the inquiry. The Sister’s solicitors, Tan & Au LLP (“Tan & Au”) took the position that the Brother was liable. However, the Brother took the position that AR Leong’s costs order did not specify who was to pay the costs of the inquiry. AR Leong’s costs order merely stated that such costs were to be agreed or taxed.

On 4 December 2013, AR Leong clarified explicitly that his costs order meant that the Brother was liable to pay such costs to the Sister.

Subsequently, the Brother filed Originating Summons No 1187 of 2013 (“OS 1187/2013”) on 12 December 2013 to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of AR Leong.

On 24 February 2014, Assistant Registrar Una Khng (“AR Khng”) granted the Brother’s application for an extension of time to appeal. Thereafter, the Brother filed Registrar’s Appeal No 54 of 2014 (“RA 54/2014”) in Suit No 385 of 2011 on 25 February 2014 to appeal against both the substantive decision of AR Leong and his costs order.

The Sister then filed an appeal on 5 March 2014 against AR Khng’s decision to grant the Brother’s application for an extension of time to appeal. This was Registrar’s Appeal No 72 of 2014 (“RA 72/2014”).

Both RA 54/2014 and RA 72/2014 came up for hearing before me on 19 May 2014. I heard RA 72/2014 first. If that appeal was allowed in its entirety, then no extension of time would be granted to the Brother and his own appeal would fail.

After hearing arguments, I allowed the Sister’s appeal (in RA 72/2014) partially as I elaborate below.

There were two aspects to AR Khng’s decision. In allowing the Brother an extension of time to appeal against AR Leong’s decision, AR Khng had allowed the Brother an extension of time to appeal against both the substantive decision of AR Leong and his decision on costs. I set aside AR Khng’s decision to allow the Brother an extension of time to appeal against AR Leong’s substantive decision. However, I allowed the extension of time to appeal against AR Leong’s costs order to remain.

Thereafter, I proceeded to hear RA 54/2014 in respect of AR Leong’s costs order only. After hearing arguments on the quantum of costs of the inquiry, I set aside AR Leong’s costs order in that such costs were not to be taxed although the Brother was still liable to pay the costs. Since the parties obviously could not agree on the quantum of such costs, I decided to fix the quantum of the costs. I fixed it at $400 to be paid by the Brother to the Sister.

The Brother has filed two appeals against my decisions to the Court of Appeal, ie, Civil Appeal No 95 and No 96 of 2014 (“CA 95/2014 and CA 96/2014”) respectively.

The notice of appeal for CA 95/2014 states that it is against the whole of my decision (in OS 1187 of 2013) given on 19 May 2014. This is very wide and incorrect. Presumably the Brother is appealing against part of my decision only, ie, that part in which I did not allow him an extension of time to appeal against the substantive decision of AR Leong. He cannot be appealing against the other part of my decision in which I allowed the extension of time to appeal against AR Leong’s costs order to remain.

The notice of appeal for CA 96/2014 states that it is against the whole of my decision (in Suit 385 of 2011) given on 19 May 2014. Again this is very wide. Presumably the Brother wants to proceed with his appeal against the substantive decision of AR Leong...