Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA
• Judgment Date: 29 November 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGCA 79
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 25 November 2019
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019 (Summons No 91 of 2019)
• Plaintiff Counsel: The appellant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan, Chan Yi Zhang and Toh Zhen Teck Jeremy (Tan Kok Quan Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Judgments and orders,Enforcement,Rules of Court,Non-compliance,Striking out
• Published date: 05 December 2019

Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction

On 12 September 2019, we administered an unless order (“the Unless Order”) to the appellant, Mr Biswas, in the following terms:

the [appellant] is to rectify the deficiencies in his record of appeal and core bundle, serve the relevant documents on the [respondents], and tender the relevant documents to the Registry by 30 September 2019, failing which the [appellant’s] appeal in [Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019] will be struck out.

On 3 October 2019, the respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant had failed to comply with the Unless Order. We therefore directed that there be a hearing to decide whether Civil Appeal No 2 of 2019 (“CA/CA 2/2019”) should be struck out for breach of the Unless Order. This hearing was held on 25 November 2019. After considering the parties’ submissions, we ordered that CA/CA 2/2019 be struck out. We now give the detailed grounds for our decision.

Procedural history

We begin with the procedural history of this matter, which was crucial to our decision and warrants setting out in some detail. On 12 February 2019, the Registry served the parties with a notice that the record of proceedings was available. Pursuant to O 57 rr 9 and 9A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the ROC”), the appellant was required to file his Case, the record of appeal, a core bundle of documents, and a bundle of authorities by 12 April 2019.

On 9 April 2019, the appellant requested an extension of time to file his Case. The Registry replied that a formal application was required as the appellant did not indicate that the respondents had consented to his request. The appellant did not file such an application.

On 12 April 2019, the appellant filed his Case, form of record of appeal, and form of core bundle. The respondents wrote to the Registry on 18 April 2019, stating that the appellant’s form of record of appeal and form of core bundle were in contravention of the requirements of the ROC, and that the appellant had failed to file a bundle of authorities.

A case management conference (“CMC”) was held on 30 April 2019, during which the parties agreed that: (i) the appellant was to take out an application to remedy his non-compliance with the ROC by 10 May 2019, and (ii) pending any further directions, the respondents were to file their Case by 31 May 2019.

The appellant did not file any application by 10 May 2019, although he filed a bundle of authorities. On 15 May 2019, the respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant had failed to file an application to remedy his non-compliance with the ROC by 10 May 2019. The appellant replied on 22 May 2019 saying that he had filed a revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle, and a bundle of authorities on 10 May 2019, but that the revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle were rejected as he did not have leave to file them. He proposed to file an application for leave by 31 May 2019. On 24 May 2019, the respondents communicated their disagreement to the extension of time requested by the appellant.

On 28 May 2019, this court directed that: the appellant was to file by 4pm on 7 June 2019 such application as he deemed appropriate to rectify the defects in the record of appeal and his core bundle (“the appellant’s Application”); if the appellant’s Application was filed, the respondents were to write to the court as soon as possible, but in any event by 4pm on 14 June 2019, to state if they consented to the appellant’s Application; if the appellant failed to file the appellant’s Application by 4pm on 7 June 2019, the respondents were at liberty to proceed to file such application as they deemed appropriate (“the respondents’ Application”). The respondents’ Application was to be filed by 4pm on 19 June 2019; and the timelines for the filing of the respondents’ Case were to be stayed to the later of (i) 21 June 2019 (if the respondents did not file any application referred to above); or (ii) the time the appellant’s Application or the respondents’ Application (if filed) was determined.

A CMC was held on 31 May 2019, where assistant registrar James Low reiterated the court’s directions to the appellant, and suggested that the appellant could provide the respondents with his revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle for their comments, before filing them. The appellant stated that he was happy to do so, and would provide them with the documents by 4 June 2019. According to the respondents, the appellant did not provide them with the documents by 4 June 2019.

On 7 June 2019, the appellant filed Court of Appeal Summons No 66 of 2019 (“CA/SUM 66/2019”) seeking leave to refile the form of record of appeal and form of core bundle. He was granted leave to refile the record of appeal and core bundle by 10 July 2019.

On 10 July 2019, the appellant filed a revised form of record of appeal and form of core bundle. On 19 July 2019, the respondents wrote to the Registry stating that the appellant remained in non-compliance with the ROC as, amongst other things, the appellant had failed to file and serve the relevant documents on the respondents. On 25 July 2019, the respondents were directed to file such application as they deemed appropriate by 31 July 2019.

A third CMC was held on 30 July 2019. At this CMC, the appellant indicated that he would file and serve all the required documents by the first week of August 2019. He did not do so.

On 1 August 2019, the respondents filed Court of Appeal Summons No 91 of 2019 (“CA/SUM 91/2019”) seeking to strike out CA/CA 2/2019 on the basis that the appellant had failed to comply with the requirements for the...