Sethuraman Arumugam v Star Furniture Industries Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 27 May 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 144
• Published date: 06 March 2013
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Perumal Athitham (Yeo Perumal Mohideen & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Simon Yuen (Tan & Lim)

JUDGMENT:

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. With effect from 1 January 1999, section 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act was amended to read

21.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this or any other written law, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from a decision of a District Court or Magistrate’s Court in any suit or action for the recovery of immovable property or in any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter exceeds $50,000 or such other amount as may be specified by an order made under subsection (3) or with the leave of a District Court, a Magistrate’s Court or the High Court if under that amount.

Prior to the amendment, the figure was $5,000 where it is now $50,000.

2. The application before me was for leave to appeal against the decision of a District Judge in DC Suit No. 593 of 1998, and for an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal.

3. The applicant is the plaintiff in the action. It arose out of an industrial accident in which he suffered injuries. In the action, he claimed special and general damages. At the trial, the damages were quantified by his counsel at $52,560.

4. To his disappointment, his claim was dismissed on 9 April 1999. Being dissatisfied with that result, he wanted to appeal against the dismissal.

5. A Notice of Appeal was filed on 17 April, but it was rejected on 19 April 1999 by the registry on the ground that it should be filed with the leave of court. An application for leave was made, and after the District Judge refused leave on 27 April, the application was made to the High Court.

6. When the application came before me for hearing I wanted to be clear that the claim was quantified at $52,560 at the trial, and counsel confirmed that. When they did that, the issue changed from whether leave should be granted to whether leave was necessary.

7. Under s 21(1) leave is not needed where "the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter exceeds $50,000".

8. The plaintiff is claiming $52,560 in damages. The defendants deny liability. At the end of the trial the whole claim failed. On appeal the dispute will be whether the plaintiff should be awarded the damages of $52,560 that he seeks.

9. The registry should not have rejected the Notice of Appeal filed without leave because no leave is required under s 21(1). I granted the plaintiff an extension of time to re-file it.

10. That disposed off the present case quite simply because the whole claim was dismissed. An interesting question may arise when a claim is partly allowed. Suppose that of the claim of $52,560, $30,000 was awarded after trial. If the plaintiff appeals against the judgment, he is seeking to receive $22,560 more. If the defendants appeal, they are seeking to avoid paying $30,000 under the judgment. The amount in dispute in the appeal is $22,560 or $30,000, but not $52,560. Is leave necessary for either party to appeal on a proper construction s 21(1)?

11. When the amount of $50,000 is mentioned in s21(1), it is with reference to "any civil cause or matter where the amount in dispute … exceeds $50,000 …". On a strict reading, that relates to the original claim, but that may not be the appropriate construction.

12. Section 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act provides that

In the interpretation of a provision of a written law, an interpretation that would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the written law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object.

13. It can be applied with great...