Tan Soo Giem v Yeo Ching Chua

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 28 October 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 264
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Court Suit No 605781 of 2000 (Registrar's Appeal No 600004 of 2003)
• Date: 28 October 2003
• Published date: 07 November 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Tiang Yao and Winston Low (Winston Low and Partners)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 264
• Defendant Counsel: S Magintharan (Netto Tan and S Magin)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Order 55D rr 4(2), 4(3) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1996 Rev Ed),Leave,Extension of time,Jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts to extend time to file for leave to appeal,Appeals,Civil Procedure

1 In March 2003 the deputy registrar of the Subordinate Courts dismissed the application of the defendant to extend time to file an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s 21 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (“SCJA”) and O 55D r 4(3). On the authority of Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson [1991] 2 MLJ 501, the Deputy Registrar ruled that, on the proper construction of O 55D r 4(3) read with r 14 of the Rules of Court, a Magistrate’s Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application. He ruled that the application for extension of time for that purpose must be made to the High Court.

2 The defendant appealed to the district judge. The district judge allowed the appeal. She held that a Subordinate Court has jurisdiction to extend time for the filing of an application for leave to appeal to itself under O 55D r 4(2)(a) or r (3)(a) read with r 14 of the Rules of Court. Not satisfied with the decision of the district judge, the plaintiff pursuant to the leave granted has appealed to the High Court against that decision.

The background

3 The background facts leading to this appeal may be stated within a reasonably brief compass. On 28 January 2003 a Magistrate’s Court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $7,000 with interest in respect of a claim in restitution. If the defendant had wanted to appeal against that judgment, he would have had to file an application for leave to appeal by 7 February 2003 as required by s 21 of the Act and pursuant to O 55D r 4(3) of the Rules of Court. But the defendant was late and filed the application only on 10 February 2003. He said he was then unrepresented by counsel and was under the impression that he had 14 days and not 7 days to file the application.

The Issue

4 The issue, as identified by the district judge, is this: does a District Court or Magistrate’s Court (‘Subordinate Court’) have jurisdiction to extend the time to file for leave to appeal under O 55D r 4(2) and r (3) of the Rules of Court?

The Rules of Court

5 By the Rules of Court Amendment Rules 1998 (Amendment No. 2) S612/98, O 55D of the Rules of Court was introduced with effect from 1 January 1999. It was put in place in view of the amendment to s 21 of the Act vide S608/98 under which the monetary limit for an appeal as of right in any civil cause or matter was raised from $5,000 to $50,000 in respect of appeals from the Subordinate Courts. Where “the amount in dispute or the value of the subject matter” fell below $50,000, the intended appellant has to seek the leave of the Magistrate’s Court or the District Court, being the court of first instance. If leave was refused, he may file an application for leave to appeal to the High Court.

The relevant provisions of the Rules of Court

6 I should begin by referring to O 3 r 4 on extension of time. Order 3 r 4(1) provides that the Court may, on such terms as it thinks just, by order extend the time within which a person is required or authorised by the Rules of Court to do any act in any proceedings. Rule 4(2) provides that the Court may extend the period, although the application for extension of time is not made until after the expiration of the period.

7 I should now refer to two rules under O 55D, namely r 4 and r 14.

Rule 4 reads:

“4-(1) Subject to this rule, every notice of appeal must be filed and served under Rule 3(8) within 14 days-

(a) in the case of an appeal against the refusal of an

application. From the date of the refusal; and

(b) in all other cases, from the date on which the judgment

or order appealed against was pronounced.

(2) A party applying for leave under Section 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322) to appeal against an order made, or a judgment given, by a District Court must file his application –

(a) to a District Court within 7 days of the judgment or order; and

(b) in the event that leave is refused by the District Court, to the High Court within 7 days of the refusal.

(3) A party applying for leave to appeal under Section 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322) to appeal against an order made or judgment given, by a Magistrate’s Court must file his application –

(a) to a Magistrate’s Court within 7 days of the judgment or order; and

(b) in the event leave is refused by the Magistrate’s Court to the High Court within 7 days of the refusal.

(4) A party who had obtained leave to appeal under paragraph (2) or (3) shall file and serve the notice of appeal from the date on which such leave was given.”

Rule 14 reads:

“14. Without prejudice to the power of the High Court under Order 3, Rule 4, to extend the time prescribed by any provision of this Order, the period for filing and serving the notice of appeal under paragraph (1) of Rule 4 may be extended by the Court below on application made before the expiration of that period.”

Grounds of Appeal

8 I now turn to the grounds of appeal. It is submitted that on a plain reading of O 55D and r 14 together with Pearson’s case, it is clear that only the High Court has jurisdiction. Pearson’s case, it is submitted, held that O 57 r 4 read with r 17, as they were drafted, and which are similar in text as O 55D r 14, conferred the power of extension of time to file a notice of appeal exclusively on the Court of Appeal.

9 It is useful to take a closer look at Pearson’s case...