Re XY & Company

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 26 October 1966
• Date: 26 October 1966
• Docket Number: Civil Appeals Nos Y4 and Y5 of 1966

[1966] SGFC 16

Federal Court

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Tan Ah Tah FJ

and

J W D Ambrose J

Civil Appeals Nos Y4 and Y5 of 1966

Re XY & Co

S H D Elias (Elias Brothers) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No Y4 of 1966

L A J Smith (L A J Smith) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No Y5 of 1966

G S Hill (Rodyk & Davidson) for the respondent.

County Council of Kent, Ex parte [1891] 1 QB 725 (refd)

Dawes, Ex parte; Moon, Re (1886) 17 QBD 275 (distd)

Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society, Re [1892] 2 QB 613 (refd)

Onslow v Commissioners of Inland Revenue (1890) 25 QBD 465 (distd)

Income Tax Ordinance (Cap 166, 1955Rev Ed)s 82 (consd)

Bankruptcy Act1883 (c 52) (UK)s 97 (3)

Courts of Judicature Act1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia) s 67 (consd)

Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Case stated for opinion of High Court–Appeal to Federal Court against opinion of High Court–Whether opinion of High Court a judgment or order of High Court–Section 67 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia)–Section 82 Income Tax Ordinance (Cap 166, 1955 Rev Ed)–Courts and Jurisdiction–Federal Court–Jurisdiction–Appellate–Case stated for opinion of High Court–Whether Federal Court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from High Court's opinion–Section 67 Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia)–Section 82 Income Tax Ordinance (Cap 166, 1955 Rev Ed)

The taxpayers appealed against the opinion of the High Court given under s 82 of the Income Tax Ordinance (Cap 166, 1955 Rev Ed) (“the Ordinance”) on a case stated by the Board of Review. The Comptroller of Income Tax applied to set aside the notices of appeal and to stay all further proceedings, arguing that the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an opinion of the High Court.

The taxpayers argued that under s 82 (6) of the Ordinance the determination of a question on a stated case was a decision. A decision is either a judgment or an order, and as the opinion was not obtained in an action it was an order. Since the Federal Court had jurisdiction under s 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia) to determine appeals from any judgment or order of any High Court, it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Held, setting aside the appeals:

(1) If it had been intended that an opinion delivered under s 82 should be the subject of an appeal, the intention would have been explicitly stated in the Ordinance: at [2].

(2) Not every determination by the High Court is or is equivalent to an order. The language of the section under which the case is stated and the context of the section had to be carefully considered: at [6].

(3) The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under s 82 of the Ordinance is only consultative and not judicial. The decision was given by the Board, and a right of appeal existed to the High Court, which had full jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the decision of the Board: at [9], [13] and [15].

(4) The Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the opinion of the High Court delivered under s 82 of the Ordinance so long as the High Court did no more than remit the case stated to the board with its opinion. Such an opinion, although it is a decision, does not amount to a judgment or order within the meaning of s 67 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964: at [16].

J W D Ambrose J

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The question for decision is whether this court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the opinion of the High Court delivered under s 82 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1965 (No 43 of 1965) [Income Tax...