Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao
[2024] SGHC(A) 9 High Court (Appellate Division) 25 March 2024 • AD/CA 122/2023 ( AD/SUM 48/2023 ) • 17 min read
7 cases cited
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (2)
Counsel (14)
Braddell Brothers LLP Firm K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Firm Trident Law Corporation Firm Chan Yu Jie Counsel Respondent Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin Counsel Appellant Kronenburg Edmund Jerome Counsel Respondent Lim Yanqing Esther Candice Counsel Respondent Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi Counsel Appellant Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik Counsel Appellant Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel Appellant Partheban s/o Pandiyan Counsel Appellant Tan Lai Tian Timothy Counsel Appellant Tang Kai Qing Counsel Respondent Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram Counsel Appellant
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao [2024] SGHC(A) 9 is a Grounds of Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (Civil Appeal No 122 of 2023, Summons No 48 of 2023), heard on 20 February 2024 and delivered on 25 March 2024 by Kannan Ramesh JAD, sitting with See Kee Oon JAD. AD/SUM 48/2023 was the respondent Wang Piao's application to strike out the appellant Lee Wee Ching's notice of appeal in AD/CA 122/2023, raising the question of whether the appellant's right of appeal was circumscribed or fettered by the Rules of Court 2021. The court answered that question in the negative and dismissed the striking-out application with costs to the appellant. The underlying dispute arose from HC/OC 406/2022, in which Wang Piao, Lee Wee Ching and Bryan Tio Geok Hong were shareholders of Apek Services (Pte) Ltd, a Singapore-incorporated company involved in the manufacture and repair of process control equipment. The catchwords identify the issues as civil procedure relating to the striking out of appeals and the right of appeal.
Summary
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
25 March 2024
Case summary
Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao [2024] SGHC(A) 9
Civil Appeal No 122 of 2023 (Summons No 48 of 2023)
Civil Appeal No 122 of 2023 (Summons No 48 of 2023)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Justice Kannan Ramesh):
Outcome: The Appellate Division of the High Court (“Appellate Division”) dismissed an application to strike out a notice of appeal against a decision of a Judge of the General Division of the High Court (the “Judge”).
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
• The Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) (“SCJA”) allows more than a single tier of appeal (without needing permission of court) by a party against whom summary judgment has been granted by an assistant registrar. The Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) does not have the effect of fettering a right of appeal conferred under the SCJA unless that is specifically permitted by the SCJA: at [20] and [27].
• Order 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021 simply lays down a procedural rule for how a party’s statutory rights of appeal should be exercised: at [26].
Background
1 Mr Wang Piao (“Mr Wang”) was the claimant and Mr Lee Wee Ching (“Mr Lee”) the defendant in HC/OC 406/2022 (“OC 406”). Mr Wang claimed that Mr Lee had breached a loan agreement between the parties (the “Loan Agreement”).
2 On 14 April 2023, an assistant registrar (the “AR”) found that Mr Wang had established a prima facie case that Mr Lee had to repay him the sum of US$1.95m under the Loan Agreement. The AR concluded that Mr Lee had failed to show any triable issues or that he had a bona fide defence. The AR granted summary judgment in favour of Mr Wang in the sum of US$1.95m, with interest and costs.
3 On 24 April 2023, Mr Lee filed an appeal in HC/RA 78/2023 (“RA 78”) against the AR’s decision. RA 78 was dismissed by the Judge on 3 October 2023. The Judge found that Mr Wang had established a prima facie case for summary judgment. The Judge further found that Mr Lee had not shown that there was a fair or reasonable probability that he had a real or bona fide defence.
4 On 14 November 2023, Mr Lee appealed the decision in RA 78 in AD/CA 122/2023 (“AD 122”). On 28 November 2023, Mr Wang filed AD/SUM 48/2023 (“SUM 48”) to strike out AD 122. Mr Wang submitted that AD 122 should be struck out on two grounds: (a) Mr Lee did not have a right to file the appeal in AD 122 as O 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021 provided for a “default position” that “an unsuccessful party in an application is not allowed to file more than one appeal in respect of that application, unless the Court otherwise orders”; and (b) AD 122 was an abuse of process and/or it was in the interests of justice that the appeal be struck out.
Decision
Interpretation of O 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021
5 The Appellate Division dismissed SUM 48 with costs: at [36].
6 Mr Lee’s right to file the notice of appeal in AD 122 was governed by the SCJA and not ROC 2021. The SCJA allows more than a single tier of appeal (without needing permission of court) by a party against whom summary judgment has been granted by an assistant registrar. Mr Lee therefore had the right to appeal the Judge’s decision in RA 78 and file the notice of appeal in AD 122: at [20].
7 The jurisdiction of appellate courts in Singapore is statutorily provided for and the corollary of this is that the right of appeal is also statutorily conferred: at [21].
8 The SCJA, which statutorily delimits parties’ rights of appeal by stipulating matters that are (a) appealable as of right, (b) appealable with leave (ie, permission) and (c) non-appealable, does not prohibit a second-tier appeal to the Appellate Division from a first-tier appeal to a Judge of the General Division by a party against whom an assistant registrar has granted summary judgment. The SCJA also does not contain any requirement to seek the permission of the Appellate Division to appeal a decision of a Judge of the General Division dismissing an appeal against the grant of summary judgment by an assistant registrar. Accordingly, the decision of the Judge in RA 78 is appealable to the Appellate Division as a matter of right: at [23]–[24].
9 This interpretation is supported by the Hansard records for the second reading debate for the Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment No 2) Bill (Bill No 33/2018). The debate showed that Parliament had amended the SCJA to consolidate provisions on matters which were non-appealable, or appealable only with permission, in the Schedules to the SCJA. Had Parliament intended to bar a second-tier appeal from decisions made in applications or to require permission of court before such appeals may be brought, this would have been clearly spelt out by a suitable rule in the Schedules to the SCJA: at [25].
10 Order 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021 lays down a procedural rule for how a party’s statutory rights of appeal should be exercised. Order 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021 provides that parties seeking to appeal against multiple orders made by a court pursuant to an application, such as a Single Application Pending Trial, should generally file only one appeal for each such application unless the court otherwise orders: at [26].
11 The ROC 2021 is subsidiary legislation under the SCJA. As such, the ROC 2021 cannot have the effect of fettering a right of appeal conferred under the SCJA unless that is specifically permitted by the SCJA: at [27].
Whether the notice of appeal in AD 122 should be struck out as an abuse of the process of court or in the interests of justice
12 AD 122 should not be struck out as an abuse of process or in the interests of justice: at [29].
13 As AD 122 was properly filed in exercise of a statutory right of appeal, Mr Wang had a high threshold to cross to strike out the notice of appeal on the basis of abuse of process or in the interests of justice. He did not succeed in doing so: at [31].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.
What was decided in Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao [2024] SGHC(A) 9?
The Appellate Division, in a decision delivered by Kannan Ramesh JAD on 25 March 2024, dismissed Wang Piao's application to strike out Lee Wee Ching's notice of appeal, with costs to the appellant. It held that the appellant's right of appeal was not circumscribed or fettered by the Rules of Court 2021.
What question did the striking-out application in [2024] SGHC(A) 9 raise?
The application raised the question of whether the appellant Lee Wee Ching's right of appeal was circumscribed or fettered by the Rules of Court 2021. The court, comprising Kannan Ramesh JAD and See Kee Oon JAD, answered the question in the negative and dismissed the application.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (7)
SG (2)
[2023] SGHC 216 [2023] SGHC 277
SLR (5)
[2005] 2 SLR(R) 188 [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529 [2013] 3 SLR 354 [2019] 2 SLR 564 [2020] 1 SLR 97
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC(A) 9)