Tan Kee Huat v Lim Kui Lin

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2012
• Date: 30 October 2012
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 481 of 2012
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Tan Kee Huat

Plaintiff

and

Lim Kui Lin

Defendant

[2012] SGHC 218

Judith Prakash J

Originating Summons No 481 of 2012

High Court

Courts and Jurisdiction—District Court—Plaintiff's claim exceeding District Court's jurisdictional limit—Transfer of proceedings from District Court to High Court—Section 54B Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Courts and Jurisdiction—High Court—Power to transfer proceedings from District Court to High Court—Whether assessment of damages proceedings could be transferred to High Court where interlocutory judgment had been entered in District Court—Section 54B Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

Words and Phrases—‘Sufficient reason’—Section 54B Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff (‘Tan’), a taxi-driver, commenced a suit in the District Court in 2009 against the defendant (‘Lim’) for damages arising out of a motor accident. Tan had applied for, and obtained, legal aid. On the issue of liability, parties consented to an interlocutory judgment entered against the defendant for 85%. This suit was now defended by Lim's insurers (‘the insurer’).

After the accident, Tan alleged constant back pain which prevented him from working for 42 months. Tan's expert, Dr Ho, opined in a report dated 5 July 2010 that Tan was unable to work as a taxi driver any more due to his condition and recommended that Tan undergo a surgical procedure. However, the insurer's expert, Dr Chang, disagreed with Dr Ho and opined in a report dated 22 August 2011 that the surgical procedure was unnecessary and that Tan could be employed in a sedentary position including driving a taxi.

The damages assessment hearing was scheduled on 17 August 2011, and was subsequently adjourned to 11 May 2012. Neither hearing was conducted. On 17 May 2012, Tan filed Originating Summons No 481 of 2012 to apply under s 54B of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) to transfer the proceedings from the District Court to the High Court, on the basis that the damages claimed exceeded the jurisdiction of the District Court. Tan was presently claiming against Lim general damages of $463,500.00 and special damages of $9,834.16. The insurer objected to the transfer on the basis that (a)Tan's claims were unsubstantiated; (b)there was undue delay in making the application to transfer, and (c)the issue of liability had already been finalised.

Held, granting the application:

(1) In respect of a case commenced in the District Court, the entering of an interlocutory judgment was not a legal affirmation of the lower court's jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claim for the entire duration of the proceedings. The fact that the amount to be awarded to the plaintiff was likely to exceed the jurisdictional limit of the inferior court would constitute ‘sufficient reason’ for a transfer of proceedings under s 54B (1) of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed): at [29].

(2) While the defendant disagreed with the plaintiff's medical evidence, a determination of this issue could only be made after a full hearing. The hearing of this application was not the correct forum to determine which doctor's evidence was more credible. The plaintiff's claims would, if established, support a quantification of damages which would exceed the District Court limit. The plaintiff had, prima facie,established the material change in circumstances necessary to support his application for a transfer: at [33] to [35].

(3) The defendant would not be irretrievably prejudiced because the work done by both sides so far would be as useful to an assessment in the High Court as it would have been to an assessment in the District Court. It was not wholly the plaintiff's fault that both damages assessment hearings were adjourned. The only possible prejudice which the defendant was able to point to was his inability to recover costs from the plaintiff as the plaintiff was legally aided, but this argument was rejected because accepting it would suggest that legally aided litigants could never apply for a transfer of their proceedings to the High Court no matter how good their reasons were: at [37], [39] and [45].

(4) Although the four-year time lapse was not ideal, there was no evidence that it had led to any particular difficulty in conducting the litigation. The defendant did not raise any particular practical problems that would be encountered in re-litigating the case if the consent order were to be set aside. Any prejudice that the defendant might sustain by reason of the transfer would be adequately met by setting aside the consent judgment so that the defendant could re-litigate the extent to which he was liable for the accident: at [47] and [48].

Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng [2008] 2 SLR (R) 839; [2008] 2 SLR 839 (folld)

Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng [2010] 2 SLR 1015 (folld)

Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) s 54B (consd) ;s 54B (1)

V Ramakrishnan (V Ramakrishnan & Co) for the plaintiff

Patrick Yeo and Jayaprakash (Khattar Wong) for the defendant.

Judith Prakash J

Introduction

1 This application arose out of District Court Suit No 3104 of 2009/Y (‘the DC Suit’). The plaintiff in the DC Suit and in this Originating Summons was Tan Kee Huat (‘the plaintiff’). The defendant in the DC Suit and in this Originating Summons was Lim Kui Lin (‘the defendant’).

2 The plaintiff commenced the DC Suit in 2009 to recover damages arising from injuries that he sustained when his taxi was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant. The insurers of the defendant's vehicle conducted the defence on his behalf. Subsequently, negotiations took place and the defendant's insurers agreed that he should consent to interlocutory judgment being entered against him on the basis that the defendant would bear 85% of the damages sustained by the plaintiff. Accordingly, interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed was entered by consent in the DC Suit on 17 March 2010.

3 The Originating Summons herein was filed on 17 May 2012. The plaintiff prayed for an order that the action be transferred from the District Court to the High Court and be tried as a suit on the basis that the sum involved exceeded $250,000, the limit of the District Court's jurisdiction.

4 Iheard the application on 13 August 2012 and allowed it on the basis that the interlocutory judgment was set aside so that after the proceedings had been transferred to the High Court the defendant would be able to defend the suit and argue that his liability, if any, should be for less than 85% of the plaintiff's damages. The defendant and his insurers are not happy with this outcome and have lodged an appeal.

Background

5 On 14 October 2008, the plaintiff was driving his taxi along Upper East Coast Road when it was involved in a collision with vehicle no SGR 1857 K, driven by the defendant. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered personal injuries. He was taken to Changi General Hospital where he complained of pain in the right foot. X-rays of his right foot showed fractures of the neck of the third and fourth metatarsals. The plaintiff was treated for pain and was discharged with analgesics and crutches. He was given two weeks' hospitalisation leave.

6 Amedical report dated 12 February 2009 stated that on 21 October 2008, the plaintiff was seen in the Orthopaedics Clinic of Changi General Hospital. He complained of neck pain, back pain and right foot pain and swelling arising after the accident. An MRI scan of his cervical spine was performed and the result was normal. He was treated with analgesics and his right foot was kept in a cast. Upon subsequent reviews, his neck and back pain had apparently resolved and his fractures were healing. The plaintiff was to be reviewed again in late February 2009 and his diagnoses were: (a) neck and back strain and (b) right foot third and fourth metatarsal fractures. The letter stated that the plaintiff's hospitalisation leave was from 21 October 2008 to 25 February 2009.

7 The plaintiff continued to complain of pain and a further MRI scan was conducted in June 2009. The plaintiff attended regularly at the outpatient clinic for treatment complaining of intermittent pain over his right foot, neck and lower back region. In a report dated 13 August 2009, a senior...