Ricky Charles s/o Gabriel Thanabalan v Chua Boon Yeow

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li JC
• Judgment Date: 25 April 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] SGHC 87
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 46 of 2002
• Date: 25 April 2002
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2002
• Plaintiff Counsel: Perumal Athitham (Yeo Perumal Mohideen & Partners)
• Citation: [2002] SGHC 87
• Defendant Counsel: Fazal Mohamed and Harpal Singh (B Rao & KS Rajah)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Jurisdiction,Whether to allow application,s 38 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 1999 Ed),Sch 1 para 10 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed),Application to transfer proceedings from district court to High Court,Courts and Jurisdiction,Interlocutory judgment made,Circumstances under which High Court can exercise power to transfer proceedings

proceedings from District Court to High Court – Interlocutory judgment obtained before application – Whether proceedings can be transferred – Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) s 38 and Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) s 18 & First Schedule para 10

Facts

On 18 July 2000, the applicant, Thanabalan, commenced an action against the respondent, Chua, in the District Court for damages for personal injury arising from a traffic accident. Thanabalan subsequently obtained an interlocutory judgment, by consent, with damages to be assessed. On 11 January 2002, Thanabalan filed an application to transfer the proceedings in the District Court to the High Court on the ground that in view of certain medical reports, the damages he sought might well exceed the $250,000 jurisdictional limit of the District Court. Chua resisted the application on the ground that it was unlikely that Thanabalan’s damages would exceed $250,000.

Held

, dismissing the application

(1) Paragraph 10 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act ("SCJA") and s 38 of the Subordinate Courts Act should be read together. Although the High Court had a wide power to transfer proceedings from the District Court to the High Court under para 10, the grounds for doing so should come under one of the limbs in s 38 (see 12).

(2) Thanabalan’s claim did not involve some important question of law nor was it a test case. He therefore had to show that there was a sufficient reason for the transfer (see 13).

(3) That the damages sought might well exceed $250,000 would usually constitute sufficient reason to transfer the proceedings to the High Court (see 13). However, it was doubtful whether the High Court had the power to transfer proceedings from the District Court to the High Court when interlocutory judgment had already been entered in the District Court. Notwithstanding the broad discretion and jurisdiction granted to the court in para 10 of the First Schedule to the SCJA, the limit of damages was fixed once interlocutory judgment was entered. To allow the transfer would not be a question of increasing the jurisdiction of the District Court since the damages would then be assessed in the High Court. It would be a question of circumventing the limit under the interlocutory judgment of the District Court (see 21).

(4) The assessment of damages was circumscribed by the jurisdiction of the District Court. The parties proceeded on that basis and consent interlocutory judgment was entered on that basis. It was too late for Thanabalan to try and overcome this by applying to transfer the proceedings to the High Court (see 24).

Case(s) referred to

Australian Master Builders Co Pty Ltd v Ng Tai Tuan [1988] 1 MLJ 273 (distd)

Legislation referred to

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) s 38
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) s 18, First Schedule para 10
Rules of Court O 89 r 2

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

Introduction

1. The Applicant Ricky Charles s/o Gopal Thanabalan claims against the Respondent Chua Boon Yeow for damages for personal injury arising from an accident on 25 December 1995 in which a car driven by the Respondent collided into a motorcycle which the Applicant was riding on.

2. On 18 July 2000, the Applicant filed an action in the District Court against the Respondent. Subsequently, the Applicant obtained an interlocutory judgment from the District Court against the Respondent, by consent, with damages to be assessed.

3. Thereafter on 11 January 2002, the Applicant filed the present application i.e Originating Summons No 46 of 2002/W to transfer the 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 1999.

4. The sole ground on which the application was made was that the damages sought by the Applicant may well exceed $250,000 i.e the limit of the civil jurisdiction of the District Court in view of certain medical reports.

5. The application was initially resisted on the ground that it was unlikely that the Applicant’s damages would exceed $250,000 in view of a surveillance of the Applicant which the Respondent had caused to be undertaken and a medical report obtained by the Respondent. However, notwithstanding these two reports, it was not possible for me to say, at this stage, that the Applicant’s damages would necessarily be less than $250,000.

6. However, I had a concern. As interlocutory judgment had already been granted by the District Court, it seemed strange to me that there would be another judgment or order, this time from the High Court, on the same cause of action but regarding the quantum of damages.

7. Eventually, after hearing arguments, I dismissed the application on 12 April 2002 with some costs to...