Ricky Charles s/o Gabriel Thanabalan v Chua Boon Yeow

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 02 December 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGCA 52
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 50 of 2002
• Date: 02 December 2002
• Year: 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Perumal Athitham (Yeo Perumal Mohideen & Partners)
• Citation: [2002] SGCA 52
• Defendant Counsel: Fazal Mohamed bin Abdul Karim and Harpal Singh (B Rao & K S Rajah)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Plaintiff obtaining interlocutory judgment in District Court,s 18 and cl 10 of first schedule Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) read with s 38 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Rev Ed),O 89 r 2 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed),Civil Procedure,s 18 and cl 10 of first schedule Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Whether assessment of damages can be transferred to High Court where interlocutory judgment entered in District Court,Power to transfer proceedings from District Court to High Court,Courts and Jurisdiction,Application to transfer proceedings from District Court to High Court,Whether assessment of damages can be transferred to High Court,High court,Jurisdiction

interlocutory judgment had already been obtained in the district court – Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) s 18 and cl 10 of first schedule – Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) s 38

Facts

The appellant and the respondent were involved in a motor vehicle accident on 25 December 1999. On 18 July 2000, the appellant commenced an action against the respondent for damages for personal injuries arising out of the accident. The defence was filed on 22 August 2000. Subsequently, about ten months later, on 15 June 2001, the appellant obtained an interlocutory judgment from the district court, against the respondent, by consent, with damages to be assessed. On 11 January 2002, the appellant filed an application to transfer the proceedings from the district court to the High Court, on the ground that his damages might exceed the jurisdictional limit of the district court. His application was dismissed by the judicial commissioner in Originating Summons 46 of 2002/W on the basis that the High Court had no jurisdiction to order the transfer, in view of the interlocutory judgment. The judicial commissioner further stated that even if the High Court had the jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings, notwithstanding the interlocutory judgment, the appellant still had to persuade him to exercise his discretionary power in the appellant’s favour. He was of the view that it was too late for the appellant to try and overcome the jurisdictional limit of the district court via a transfer of the proceedings to the High Court, since the parties had proceeded and interlocutory judgment was entered on the basis that the damages awarded would be circumscribed by the jurisdiction of the district court.

Held,

dismissing the appeal

(1) Section 18(3) of the SCJA provides very clearly that the powers set out in the first schedule are to be exercised in accordance with any written law relating to them. The judicial commissioner had correctly interpreted that, although clause 10 of the first schedule gives the High Court very wide powers to transfer proceedings from the district court to the High Court, it has to be read subject to s 38 of the SCA (see 10) .

(2) The power of the High Court to transfer proceedings from a lower court to itself or vice versa is a necessary one, in the interests of

justice. Nevertheless, such a power should not be exercised liberally. The onus is really on a plaintiff to commence his action in the correct court. The plaintiff, who has commenced his action in the inappropriate court, ought not to be allowed, without good cause, to simply rectify his own error by applying for a transfer of proceedings (see 12).

(3) Section 38 of the SCA gives the High Court the discretion to transfer an entire action, ie the claim, encompassing both the question of liability and quantum to the High Court. It is not within the spirit of the section, which requires the matter to be "one which should be tried in the High Court", to permit a transfer of a case where interlocutory judgment had already been obtained in the district court, leaving only the quantum to be assessed and what was sought to be transferred to the High Court was merely the assessment of damages. This would be to truncate a single proceeding and blur the distinction between the two jurisdictions. By obtaining an interlocutory judgment in the district court, the appellant had affirmed his claim within the jurisdiction of that court (see 16).

Case(s) referred to

Australian Masters Builders Co Pte Ltd v Ng Tai Tuan

((1988) 1 MLJ 273 (refd)

Legislation referred to

Rules of Court O 89 r 2

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) s 38

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) s 18, cl 10 of first schedule

[Delivered by Yong Pung How CJ]

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court, in Originating Summons No 46 of 2002/W, which dismissed the appellant’s application to transfer proceedings in the district court to the High Court, pursuant to s 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act ("SCJA") and O 89 r 2 of the Rules of Court. Having heard counsel for the parties, we dismissed the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons.

The background

2 The appellant and the respondent were involved in a motor vehicle accident on 25 December 1999, when the motor vehicle driven by the respondent collided into the motorcycle ridden by the appellant. The accident resulted in the death of the appellant’s pillion rider and the respondent was charged under s 304A of the Penal Code, for causing death by a rash and negligent act. The respondent pleaded guilty and was fined $8000, in default four months’ imprisonment, and was banned from driving for a period of seven years.

3 On 18 July 2000, the appellant commenced an action against the respondent for damages for personal injuries arising out of the accident. In the statement of claim filed, the appellant claimed $33,600.63 for medical expenses and hospitalisation bills incurred, as well as for future medical expenses. The defence was filed on 22 August 2000.

4 Subsequently, about ten months later, on 15 June 2001, the appellant obtained an interlocutory judgment from the district court, against the respondent by consent, with damages to be assessed. On 4 October 2001, the appellant’s solicitors wrote to the respondent’s solicitors, asking whether the respondent was willing to consent to the district court having an increased jurisdiction beyond its limit of $250,000, in view of the fact that the appellant’s medical expenses had already amounted to $160,000. The appellant was also scheduled to go for another operation, which would...