Sng Hung Meng v Public Utilities Board

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 23 February 1966
• Date: 23 February 1966
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y1 of 1966
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Sng Hung Meng

Plaintiff

and

Public Utilities Board

Defendant

[1965] SGHC 12

F A Chua J

High Court

Civil Procedure–Writ of summons–Claim of overtime pay–Whether claim discloses cause of action under O III r 5 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934–Order III r 5 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934–Civil Procedure–Writ of summons–Issuance of writ of summons out of High Court of Singapore in name of foreign sovereign–Whether writ null and void–Section 6 Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 (Act 53 of 1965) (M'sia)

On 17 November 1965, the plaintiff in pursuing his claim against the defendant for overtime pay issued a writ in the name and on behalf of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia. Section 6 of the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 (Act 53 of 1965) (M'sia) (“the Malaysia Act”) provided that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would cease to be the Supreme Head of Singapore on 9 August 1965 and his power and authority would vest in the Yang di-Pertuan Negara, the Head of State of Singapore.

The defendant applied to set aside the writ on the grounds that the plaintiff's claim did not disclose a cause of action which came under O III r 5 of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1934, and the said writ should have been issued in the name and on behalf of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara.

Held, allowing the application:

(1) The statement of claim disclosed that the plaintiff's claim was a claim on a contract of service and was for a liquidated sum. It was therefore the subject of a specially indorsed writ under O III r 5: at [5].

(2) Although s 7 (1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia) stated that the writ should be issued in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, by s 6 of the Malaysia Act, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong had, on 9 August 1965 ceased to be the Supreme Head of Singapore, and his powers in respect of Singapore were transferred to the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. Further, the High Court had ceased to be a High Court of the Federation of Malaysia in Singapore and was now the High Court of the State of Singapore: at [16].

(3) The writ of summons should have been issued in the name and on behalf of the Yang di-Pertuan Negara. The writ was not merely irregular but was a nullity: at [17] to [18].

Rules of the Supreme Court1934 , TheO IIIr 5 (consd)

Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965 (Act 53 of1965) (M'sia) s 6 (consd);ss 7, 8

Courts of Judicature Act1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia)s 7 (1)

Howard Cashin for the plaintiff

Tan Cheng Gunn for the defendant.

F A Chua J

1 On 17 November 1965, the plaintiff in this case issued a specially indorsed writ claiming “for $11,911 being overtime pay payable by the defendants to the plaintiff for work done and services rendered by the plaintiff to the city council of Singapore and to the defendants as an employee of the said city council and as an employee of the defendants”. Particulars of the overtime were also set out in the statement of claim endorsed on the writ.

2 The mandatory part of the writ is in this form “The Honourable Dato' Wee Chong Jin, PMN, Chief Justice of Singapore, in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong …”.

3 A copy of this writ was served on the defendants and they entered conditional appearance on 2 December 1965.

4 On 2 December 1965, the defendants issued a summons applying for the writ to be set aside for irregularity on the grounds:

(a) that the said writ was issued in the name and on behalf of His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong instead of the name of His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara contrary to s 7 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 and s 6 of the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965; and

(b) that the plaintiff's claim as pleaded therein is not such as may properly be the subject of a specially indorsed writ under O III r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1934.

5 Taking the second ground of the defendants first. It was submitted that the statement of claim endorsed on the writ did not disclose a cause of action which comes within O III r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1934. I am of the view that there is no substance in this submission. The statement of claim discloses that it was a claim on a contract of service and was for a liquidated sum and is therefore a subject of a specially indorsed writ under O III r 5.

6 I now come to the first ground.

7 By s 7 (1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 “ [a]ll summonses … shall be issued and shall be expressed to be issued by the Chief Justice of the High Court issuing the same in the name of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and shall be signed by a Registrar of such court”.

8 It is also necessary to mention the Independence of Singapore Agreement, 1965, and the Constitution and Malaysia (Singapore Amendment) Act 1965.

9 By an agreement dated 7 August 1965 (The Independence of Singapore Agreement 1965) made between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of Singapore, it was agreed that “Singapore shall cease to be a State of Malaysia on the 9th day of August, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as Singapore Day) and shall become an independent and sovereign state separate from and independent of Malaysia”. Article IV of the agreement provided that “ [t]he Government of Malaysia will take such steps as may be appropriate and available to them to secure the enactment by the Parliament of Malaysia of an Act in the form set out in Annex B to this agreement and will ensure that it is made operative as from Singapore Day, providing for the relinquishment of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Government of Malaysia [i]n respect of Singapore so that the said sovereignty and jurisdiction shall on such relinquishment vest in the Government of Singapore in...