Tee Than Song Construction Company Ltd v Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 04 July 1967
• Date: 04 July 1967
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y20 of 1967

[1967] SGFC 15

Federal Court

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Tan Ah Tah FJ

and

F A Chua J

Civil Appeal No Y20 of 1967

Tee Than Song Construction Co Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant

Defendant

Lee Heng Yong (DG Ironside) for the appellant/defendant

C F J Ess (RCH Lim & Co) for the respondent/plaintiff.

Bozson v Altricham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547 (folld)

Egerton v Shirley [1945] 1 KB 107 (refd)

Salaman v Warner [1891] 1 QB 734 (refd)

Standard Discount Co Ltd v La Grange (1877) 3 CPD 67 (refd)

Federal Court (Civil Appeals) Transitional Rules 1963

Rules of the Supreme Court1934 , TheO XIV

Courts of Judicature Act1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia) s68 (2) (consd)

Civil Procedure–Summary judgment–Whether order granting leave to sign final judgment was an interlocutory or final order–Section 68 (2) Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia)

The plaintiff/respondent brought an action against the defendant/appellant for work done and materials supplied. The respondent applied for summary judgment under O XIV and obtained leave to enter final judgment. The appellant's appeal to a judge in chambers against the order granting summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant then applied ex parte to the High Court for leave to appeal to the Federal Court against the order dismissing the appeal. The High Court granted the application, but subsequently set aside its order at the application of the respondent, on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction to make such an order. The appellant appealed to the Federal Court against this order. The appellant contended that an order granting summary judgment under O XIV was an interlocutory order, and pursuant to s 68 (2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 (Act 7 of 1964) (M'sia), leave had to be obtained from the court before an appeal could lie against the order. The sole question before the Federal Court was whether the order granting leave to sign final judgment was an interlocutory order or a final order.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) To determine whether a judgment or order is an “interlocutory order” within the meaning of s 68 (2) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the true test is whether the judgment or order finally disposes of the rights of the parties. If it does, it is a final order. If it does not, it is an interlocutory order: at [9].

(2) An order granting leave to sign final judgment under O XIV is not an interlocutory order because...