Singapore Pak Hock Pai Athletic Association v Yiu Pek Heng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1973
• Date: 25 May 1973
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 7 of 1973
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Singapore Pak Hock Pai Athletic Association

Plaintiff

and

Yiu Pek Heng

Defendant

[1973] SGCA 8

F A Chua J

,

T Kulasekaram J

and

Tan Ah Tah J

Civil Appeal No 7 of 1973

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Lis pendens–Whether High Court had power to make lis pendens order–Order 47 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934 compared to The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970–Sections 18 and 82 (2) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 15, 1970 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff/respondent sued for possession of certain premises. The defendant/appellant claimed that the premises were purchased partly out of funds belonging to it and it was beneficially entitled to the premises to the extent of the purchase price so paid and contributed by it. The appellant applied ex parte for alis pendens order and the High Court granted the application. The respondent then applied to set aside the lis pendens order on the ground that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to make such an order. The Chief Justice held that The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (“1970 Rules”) did not provide for the making of a lis pendens order and he set the order aside. The appellant appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Section 18 (2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 15, 1970 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) expressly provides that the High Court has the power to make alis pendens order. As such, it is irrelevant that the 1970 Rules do not expressly specify the forms and methods of procedure for applying for a lis pendens order: at [9] and [10].

(2) Since the 1970 Rules do not specify the forms and methods of procedure for an application for a lis pendens order, then s 82 (2) of the Act is applicable and the relevant forms and methods of procedure as provided for in O 47 of The Rules of Supreme Court 1934 may be used as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act or with the 1970 Rules: at [11].

Rules of the Supreme Court 1934, TheO 47 (consd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 29, O 93

Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 15, 1970 Rev Ed)ss 18, 82 (2) (consd);First Schedulepara 6

Ng Wing Cheong (Ng & Ng) for the appellant

Mohan Singh (L A J Smith) for the respondent.

F A Chua J

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 The respondent in this appeal claims possession of the premises known as 22 Lorong Limau, Singapore. In their defence the appellants claim, inter alia, that the premises were purchased partly out of funds...