Ruby Investment (Pte) Ltd v Candipark Pte Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgePunch Coomaraswamy J
Judgment Date08 August 1989
Neutral Citation[1989] SGHC 72
Citation[1989] SGHC 72
Defendant CounselChoi Yuk Hung and Kelvin Chia (Chor Pee & Co)
Plaintiff CounselJohnny Cheo (Shook Lin & Bok)
Published date19 September 2003
Docket NumberDistrict Court Appeal No 84 of 1987
Date08 August 1989
Subject Matter'Final',Documentary evidence,Whether order final,0 55 r 1(5) Subordinate Courts Rules 1986,0 55 r 1(5)l Subordinate Courts Rules 1986,Judgment on admissions,Decision of present court not to constitute such at hearing of action,s 21 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322),Civil Procedure,O 27 r 3, O 55 rr 1(1), 1 (5) & 2 Subordinate Court Rules 1986,Effect of informal admissions,ss 42 & 47 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321),Meaning of 'final',Result inconsistent with issues to be determined at trial,Judgments and orders,Whether leave needed to appeal from decision of judge,Words and Phrases,Evidence,Whether decision of judge on application interlocutory or final order

Cur Adv Vult

This appeal is against the decision of the learned district judge dismissing the appeal of the appellants from the decision of the deputy registrar dated 10 September 1987 giving judgment on admission for the sum of $15,375.40 on an application made pursuant to O 27 r 3 of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1986.

The facts of this case arise from events at and subsequent to:

(a) A meeting in March 1982 between a representative of the respondents and a representative of the appellants. At this meeting, it was agreed that the respondents will take and the appellants will grant a lease of a unit #02-06 in Ruby Industrial Complex (the demised premises). The respondents further alleged, inter alia, that it was orally agreed that the appellants would give vacant possession of the demised premises to the respondents by the end of March 1982.

(b) Pursuant to this oral agreement, the respondents signed an application form and on 27 March 1982 paid a sum of $7,687.70 to the appellants as a `booking fee`.

(c) The respondents subsequently signed an agreement for a lease on 14 April 1982 with the appellants and paid a further sum of $7,687.70, making a total of $15,375.40 to the end of April 1982, end of May 1982 and early June 1982. By a letter of 7 June 1982, the respondents purportedly rescinded the agreement for a lease in view of the appellants` alleged inability to deliver vacant possession of the demised premises.

The appellants, on the other hand, contended that there was no oral agreement with regard to a specific date for the delivery of vacant possession of the demised premises. Alternatively, the appellants contended that it can be reasonably implied that vacant possession of the demised premises can only be given to the respondents upon the issuance of a temporary occupation licence (TOL). The TOL was issued on 14 June 1982 but the respondents refused to take possession of the demised premises despite the notice to do so by the appellants.

The respondents thereafter commenced an action in DC(T) 13257 of 1986 on 9 July 1982 against the appellants to claim that they have validly rescinded the agreement to lease, that the deposit be returned to them and damages to be paid by the appellants to the respondents.

The appellants in their defence denied any agreement to deliver vacant possession by a specific date and treated the respondents` purported rescission as wrongful and amounted to a repudiation of the agreement. Accordingly, the appellants have counterclaimed against the respondents for a declaration that the agreement has been repudiated by the respondents and that the appellants are entitled to forfeit the deposit.

While awaiting trial, the respondents on 7 July 1987 filed an application for judgment on admissions, pursuant to O 27 r 3 of the Subordinate Courts Rules 1986 (the application). The admissions are allegedly contained in or implied from:

(a) the accounting records of the appellants for the year ending 31 December 1982 and the year ending 31 December 1983;

(b) letters from the auditors of the appellants to the respondents dated 28 May 1981, 27 August 1984 and 4 September 1984.

The deputy registrar in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Otto Systems Singapore Pte Ltd v Greenline-Onyx Envirotech Phils, Inc
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 September 2006
    ...the plaintiff would have to rely to establish his cause of action. He then referred to Ruby Investment (Pte) Ltd v Candipark Pte Ltd [1989] SLR 815 where a distinction was made (at 821, [30]) between informal admissions and formal admissions in pleadings and it was observed that a party cou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT