Salim Anthony v Sumitomo Corporation Capital Asia Pte Ltd and Others and Another Application

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 03 September 2004
• Date: 03 September 2004
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 50 of 2004 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 65 and 74 of 2004); Civil Appeal No 53 of 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 67, 69 and 73 of 2004); and Civil Appeal No 54 of 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 68, 70 and 76 of 2004)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Sumitomo Corp Capital Asia Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Salim Anthony and other applications

Defendant

[2004] SGCA 38

Andrew Ang JC

Civil Appeal No 50 of 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 66 and 75 of 2004); Civil Appeal No 51 of 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 65 and 74 of 2004); Civil Appeal No 53 of 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 67, 69 and 73 of 2004); and Civil Appeal No 54 of 2004 (Notices of Motion Nos 68, 70 and 76 of 2004)

Court of Appeal

Courts and Jurisdiction–Court of Appeal–Single judge Court of Appeal–Applications to adduce further evidence at substantive appeals–Applications by multiple appellants to file single case and core bundle at substantive appeals–Scope of court's power to make incidental direction not involving decision of appeal–Section 36 (1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)

The appellants and the respondents filed Notices of Motion under s 36 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”) to adduce further evidence at the substantive appeals. The appellants also applied for leave under s 36 (1) of the SCJA to file a single case and a single core bundle for the appeals. The first limb of s 36 (1) of the SCJA permitted a single judge sitting as the Court of Appeal to make “any incidental direction not involving the decision of the appeal” (“the first limb”).

Held, allowing applications to file single case and core bundle and directing that applications to adduce further evidence be adjourned to be heard by the full Court of Appeal:

(1) The first limb of s 36 (1) of the SCJA only permitted a judge to make a direction or order of casual or of secondary importance which did not affect the decision of the appeal. The word “involving” in the first limb of s 36 (1) of the SCJA was synonymous with “affecting”: at [9].

(2) A single judge sitting as the Court of Appeal had power to grant the appellants liberty to file a single case and a single core bundle for the appeals because that was a direction or order that clearly came within the first limb of s 36 (1) of the SCJA as an incidental direction not involving the decision of the appeal: at [3].

(3) A single judge did not have the jurisdiction under the first limb of s 36 (1) of the SCJA to hear an application to adduce further evidence because a direction or order giving liberty to adduce further evidence at the appeal was not an “incidental direction not [affecting]the decision of the appeal”. Fresh evidence could not be adduced on appeal unless the evidence would probably have an important influence on the result of the case. If the evidence satisfied this condition, it followed that it would probably affect the decision of the appeal: at [10].

(4) Under s 36 (3) of the SCJA, the full Court of Appeal might discharge or vary any order made by a single judge pursuant to s 36 (1) of the SCJA. On a matter as critical to the parties as the adduction of fresh evidence, the likelihood of an application being made to the full Court of Appeal for review of the single judge's decision had to be high. It would be redundant to have the case heard by both a single-judge Court of Appeal and the full Court of Appeal: at [11].

(5) The parties could derive no practical advantage by applying to a single judge for leave to adduce further evidence at the substantive appeal. Since the full Court of Appeal could always discharge or vary the single judge's direction, the parties would have to prepare their substantive cases in the...