Thomson Plaza Pte Ltd v The Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 21 June 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGCA 44
• Date: 21 June 2001
• Subject Matter: Judgments and orders,Whether notice filed out of time,Appeals,Effect on request for further arguments of failure to comply with practice directions,Effect of allowing further arguments,Further arguments,Motion to strike out notice of appeal,Effect of court's agreement to accede to request for further arguments notwithstanding non-compliance with practice directions,Civil Procedure,Notice of appeal
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 600009 of (Notice of Motion No 600022 of 2001)
• Published date: 07 November 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Suhaimi Lazim and Pradeep Pillai (ShookLin & Bok)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Harish Kumar and Sim Yuan Po Thomas (Engelin Teh & Partners)

(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): This was a motion filed by the respondents, the Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store, to strike out a notice of appeal filed by the appellants, Thomson Plaza Pte Ltd, on the ground that the notice was filed out of time and without the leave of court. We dismissed the motion after hearing the parties. We now give our reasons as the issue raised therein is one of practical importance.

The background

On 12 July 2000, the appellants filed SIC 603083/2000 in CWU 325/1997 to appeal against the decision of the respondents, rejecting the appellants` proof of debt. The summons was heard over two days (29-30 August 2000) before GP Selvam J in chambers who reserved judgment. On 29 November 2000 the judge dismissed the appellants` application with costs. On the same day the solicitors for the appellants wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court seeking further arguments before the judge. The letter ended with this sentence:

This request is also made for the purpose of complying with s 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322), if applicable. [Emphasis is added.]

On 6 December 2000, the Registrar informed the parties that `the abovementioned matter is fixed for further arguments on Monday, 15 January 2001 at 10.00am before the Honourable Justice G P Selvam in Court No. 11`.

On 15 January 2001, the parties attended before the judge. Apparently on that day the judge had second thoughts about hearing further arguments. He also commented that the decision of 29 November 2000 was a final judgment and that the appellants had failed to comply with the practice direction which required an applicant to set out the gist of the further arguments. It would seem that no further arguments were, in fact, heard on that day. The judge merely reiterated his decision of 29 November 2000 and made no further order.

On 14 February 2001, the appellants filed their notice of appeal against the decision of the judge given on 15 January 2001.

Effect of decision to hear further arguments

Before going into a consideration of the effect of the court agreeing to hear further arguments, there is a preliminary point we need to address. This concerns the question whether the decision of the judge of 29 November 2000 was in the nature of an interlocutory order or a final order. From the way the request was framed in the appellants` solicitors letter of 29 November 2000, it was clear that the appellants were requesting for further arguments on two alternative bases, depending on whether the order of 29 November 2000 was final or interlocutory. It is settled law that even in respect of a final order, the judge has an inherent jurisdiction to recall his decision and to hear further arguments, so long as the order is not yet perfected: Re Harrison`s Share under a Settlement [1955] Ch 260[1955] 1 All ER 185. Therefore, it is quite unnecessary for us to go into a determination of the question whether the decision of 29 November 2000 was interlocutory or final. The test to be applied in deciding that question was examined by...