FOO KOK BOON v NGOW KHEONG SHEN & 2 Ors

[2023] SGHC 189 High Court (General Division) 12 July 2023 HC/S 834/2021 ( HC/SUM 1288/2023 ) · HC/OA 607/2023 21 min read

13 cases cited (11 SG, 2 foreign)

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	12 July 2023
Judge	Goh Yihan
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	John Law Chambers LLC, Tan Kok Quan Partnership, Titanium Law Chambers LLC, Alexius Chew Hui Jun, Fernandez Christopher, John Vincent, Kenneth Loh Ding Chao, Koh Keh Jang Fendrick, Low Huai Pin, Wee Anthony

Source: [2023] SGHC 189, High Court (General Division), decided 12 July 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Whether doctrine of prospective overruling applied

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Goh Yihan Delivered

Counsel (10)

John Law Chambers LLC Firm Tan Kok Quan Partnership Firm Titanium Law Chambers LLC Firm Alexius Chew Hui Jun Counsel Applicant Fernandez Christopher Counsel Respondent John Vincent Counsel Respondent Kenneth Loh Ding Chao Counsel Applicant Koh Keh Jang Fendrick Counsel Applicant Low Huai Pin Counsel Respondent Wee Anthony Counsel Applicant

Parties (4)

Foo Kok Boon Applicant Freddy Gomez s/o V Gomez Respondent Leyau Yew Teck Respondent Ngow Kheong Shen Respondent

Case Significance

Foo Kok Boon v Ngow Kheong Shen and others and another matter [2023] SGHC 189 is a reserved judgment of Goh Yihan JC in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 12 July 2023 in Originating Application No 607 of 2023. Mr Foo Kok Boon, the third defendant in HC/S 834/2021, applied in HC/OA 607/2023 to set aside a consent interlocutory judgment entered against him on 2 May 2019 ("the CIJ"). The application arose from the judge's earlier decision in Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian Anthony [2023] SGHC 75, and the catchwords frame the issue as whether the doctrine of prospective overruling applied.

[2023] SGHC 189 explained

FOO KOK BOON v NGOW KHEONG SHEN & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 189) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 12 July 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 189 about?

FOO KOK BOON v NGOW KHEONG SHEN & 2 Ors ([2023] SGHC 189) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders — Whether doctrine of prospective overruling applied”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHC 189 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHC 75. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

Foo Kok Boon, the third defendant in a personal injury suit, applied to set aside a consent interlocutory judgment entered against him in 2019, relying on the decision in Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper concerning proof of causation for every head of damage. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the doctrine of prospective overruling applied to Salmizan so that it did not affect interlocutory judgments entered before 30 March 2023.

What was Foo Kok Boon v Ngow Kheong Shen [2023] SGHC 189 about?

It was an application before Goh Yihan JC, decided on 12 July 2023, by Mr Foo Kok Boon in HC/OA 607/2023 to set aside a consent interlocutory judgment entered against him on 2 May 2019, raising whether the doctrine of prospective overruling applied.

Why did the doctrine of prospective overruling arise in [2023] SGHC 189?

The application arose because of the judge's earlier decision in Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian Anthony [2023] SGHC 75, which held that a defendant who entered an interlocutory judgment on liability cannot challenge causation at the assessment of damages stage.