|
IMPORTANT JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF APPEAL
Coram : Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin
JA and Belinda Ang J
The respondents, a licensed casino in
Perth, Australia, registered an Australian judgment in Singapore under the
Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (‘RECJA’). The
appellant judgment debtor applied to set it aside on the basis that it was a
gambling debt and registration was contrary to public policy. He failed in
the first instance before the assistant registrar and again on appeal to the
judge.
His appeal to the CA was similarly
dismissed. The CA drew a distinction between Singapore’s domestic public
policy, which precluded the enforcement of gambling debts and the higher
public policy threshold embodied in the RECJA. The CA noted that foreign
courts have evinced great reluctanceto refuse the recognition of foreign
judgments for reasons of public policy, even if their own domestic public
policy would have precluded enforcement of the underlying claim. Further,
the CA stated that the considerations of reciprocity underlying the RECJA
enjoined our courts to invoke the public policy defence with caution. As
such, the CA found that public policy did not militate against registration
of the Australian judgment, since the registration did not raise serious
issues of morality or offend against an essential public interest in
Singapore.
Coram: Yong Pung How CJ, Chao Hick Tin
JA and Judith Prakash J
The respondents were the administrators
and dependants of one Philip Tan, who had died while undergoing surgery at
Gleneagles Hospital (‘second appellant’). The first appellant was the
anaesthetist in attendance. Interlocutory judgment was entered against both
appellants and damages were assessed. The appellants took issue with the
assistant registrar’s assessment of damages and appealed to the judge.
However, the first appellant appealed only in respect of the claim for
dependency, while the second appellant appealed only in respect of the claim
for legal costs arising from the respondents’ attendance at a coroner’s
inquiry.
The judge allowed both appeals and the
parties then argued that they should be allowed to benefit from each other’s
appeal. However, the judge held that each appellant was not entitled to the
benefit of the other’s successful appeal.
The CA affirmed the decision of the
judge in restricting the benefit of the appeal only to the respective party
who had appealed on that point. The CA held that, in an adversarial system,
the onus was on the parties to give notice if they wished to challenge any
part of a decision, and to bear the costs and consequences in matters
unsuccessfully raised. The appellants, having failed to include each other’s
head of appeal in their notices of appeal, had to accept the consequences of
their choice.
Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA and
Lai Siu Chiu J
Wishing Star Ltd (‘WSL’), a construction
company incorporated in Hong Kong, commenced legal proceedings against Jurong
Town Corporation (‘JTC’). JTC applied unsuccessfully for security to be
furnished by WSL, and appealed.
In dismissing the appeal, the CA stated
that two factors weighed heavily in WSL’s favour – JTC’s delay in making the
application; and the fact that JTC’s counterclaim was based entirely on its
defence to WSL’s claim. Elaborating on the second factor, the CA opined that
granting security when JTC’s defence and counterclaim were launched from the
same platform could amount to indirectly aiding JTC in pursuing its
counterclaim.
Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA and
Tan Lee Meng J
The wife issued a Notice of Appeal
against the district judge’s orders which, inter alia, granted custody of
their son to her husband. The Notice of Appeal was served 49 days out of time.
The High Court allowed the wife’s application for an extension of time to
serve the Notice of Appeal on the basis that the issue in the substantive
appeal concerned the welfare of a child, and was therefore of paramount
importance.
On appeal, the CA allowed the husband’s
appeal. It held that the Rules of Court did not differentiate how the
discretionary power to extend time was to be exercised, based on the nature
of the proceedings. As such, the ordinary principles for granting extensions
of time for filing or serving Notices of Appeal should apply to this case.
The CA rejected the argument that a more liberal rule should apply in
relation to custody orders, as this would not only undermine the timelines
set by the Rules of Court, but would also be incompatible with the child’s
welfare as it would be unsettling for the child.
Coram : Chao Hick Tin JA and
Woo Bih Li J
The plaintiff cargo owners had issued a
writ against the defendant shipowners, and took no further step in the
proceedings for more than 11 months, before serving a statement of claim on
the defendant shipowners. The defendant shipowners objected to the service of
the statement of claim on the basis that it was served out of time, without
leave of court. Upon the plaintiff ’s application to extend time to serve the
statement of claim, the assistant registrar struck out the statement of claim
for being served out of time, and then held that the case was automatically
discontinued under O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court, as no step or
proceeding had been taken for one year. On appeal, the judge held that the
irregular service of the statement of claim constituted a step in the
proceedings under O 21 r 2(6) and there was therefore no automatic
discontinuance. She then granted leave to serve the statement of claim out of
time.
The CA upheld the judge’s decision,
stating that although the filing and service of the statement of claim was
irregular, it was not a nullity and hence was to be treated as a step or
proceeding unless set aside. As such, the automatic discontinuance rule under
O 21 r 2(6) did not apply. In addition, there was no reason to fault the
judge’s decision to regularise the late filing and service of the statement
of claim.
Back
| 
