Yoong Yuet Hoe v Shenson Engineering & Trading (S) Pte Ltd

• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu JC
• Judgment Date: 30 March 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 82
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 82
• Defendant Counsel: Hee Theng Fong and Lam Chee Kin (Hee Theng Fong & Co)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Soh Gim Chuan (Soh & Wong)
• Date: 30 March 1994
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 59 of
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Jurisdiction over civil matter,Whether reliefs sought ancillary to any claim falling within the jurisdiction of the district court,Car dealer sold appellant's car to respondents without appellant's knowledge and handed over logbook to respondents,Whether district court has power to grant reliefs sought,Claim for injunction, delivery of logbook and declaration of ownership,ss 19, 20(1) & 32 Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321),District court,Courts and Jurisdiction

Cur Adv Vult

This appeal was against the decision of the learned district judge given on 31 July 1993 wherein he dismissed the appellant`s claim without going into the merits thereof.

The background

The appellant wanted to buy a car for her son Anthony Lai (`the son`). In November 1988, the son saw a newspaper advertisement of car no SBB 6474S (`the car`) for sale at $33,900. The son with a broker Billy Tan (who had previously assisted the appellant to buy a car and also to sell a property) went to view the car. The son liked the car and a deposit of $500 was paid to the seller Chew towards the said price.

The following day Billy Tan collected the balance purchase price of $33,400 in cash from the appellant and paid the same to Chew. Billy Tan then drove the car to the appellant`s house. He did not give her the logbook but asked her to sign the Registry of Vehicles (`ROV`) forms to effect the transfer of the car into her name which she did. She also handed to him her identity card. The appellant requested Billy Tan to use the car to secure a loan of $5,000 (`the loan`) as she wanted the son (who had just completed his national service) to work and to learn to be independent by paying the instalments on the loan. Billy Tan also took the car away a day later saying he wanted to have the engine checked, he returned the car the same evening. A few days later, Billy Tan returned her identity card but not the logbook, saying he had forgotten and had left it at his office.

Thereafter, there was no sign of Billy Tan or any news about the loan. The appellant then paged for Billy Tan repeatedly but failed to contact him. She went to his office but could not find him. Sometime in March 1989 she read an article in the newspaper that Billy Tan had absconded. With the assistance of a friend`s brother who was a car dealer, she found out that the car`s logbook was with the respondents. Accompanied by her friend she then visited the respondents` office and inquired about the logbook. The respondents were not cooperative. Later she was told that Billy Tan had sold the car to the respondents. She then lodged a police report.

Unknown to the appellant, Billy Tan had gone to see the respondents in December 1988 with the car to sell it to them. He had with him the logbook and the appellant`s identity card. The respondents` director Lim Kok Seng (Lim) agreed to buy it for $30,000. Lim handed to Billy Tan an uncrossed cheque in the appellant`s favour for $25,000. The balance $5,000 was held back as Billy Tan told Lim that the car could only be delivered to the respondents in 2-4 weeks` time as the seller was looking for another car. Lim agreed and as a precaution, he registered the car`s number with the finance association to indicate the respondents had purchased the same.

As it turned out, Billy Tan did not deliver the car to the respondents within four weeks or the further two weeks that he had requested - he did not deliver the car at all. Attempts by the appellant to negotiate an amicable settlement with the respondents were unsuccessful and on 25 May 1989, the appellant commenced proceedings in the district court.

The cause of action

In her statement of claim, the appellant alleged that the respondents refused to comply with the demand of her solicitors to return the logbook and were in wrongful possession thereof. She prayed for the following reliefs:

(1) an injunction to restrain the respondents from taking possession of the car;

(2) in the alternative if the respondents took possession of the car, an order that they redeliver the car to her;

(3) a declaration that she is the owner of the car;

(4) an order that the respondents deliver the logbook forthwith to her;

(5) an order that the respondents forthwith take all steps to rectify all documents to state that she is the owner of the car;

(6) damages and costs.

At the conclusion of the trial, the learned district judge drew counsel`s attention to the decision in Lim Kim Cheong v Lee Johnson . He did not think it necessary to decide on the facts whether the appellant had clothed Billy Tan with authority to dispose of the car by giving him the logbook and her identity card. He held that the appellant not having pursued her claim for an injunction, was merely asking the court for a declaration that she was the owner. That being the thrust of the appellant`s claim, he felt he was bound by Michael Hwang JC`s decision in Lim Kim Cheong that s 32 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321) did not confer on a district court the power to grant a bare declaration unless it was ancillary to some other claim falling properly within the jurisdiction of the district court. The learned district judge accordingly dismissed the appellant`s claim with costs.

The appeal

Counsel for the appellant canvassed the following arguments before me:

(1) Michael Hwang JC in Lim Kim Cheong did not consider the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) (`SCJA`). Section 80 of the SCJA grants the Rules Committee the power to make/amend rules. Although there is nothing in the SCJA that empowers the High Court to make declarations yet the Rules Committee authorized the High Court to do so. Yet no court has ever declared the rules of the Supreme Court to be ultra vires the SCJA. The decision in Lim Kim Cheong is wrong;

(2) if the...