SBS Transit v Koh Swee Ann: Appealability of Refusal of Leave & Calderbank Letters

In SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Services Limited) v Koh Swee Ann, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an appeal concerning the refusal of leave to appeal a Magistrate's Court decision. The court held that the refusal of leave to appeal is final and conclusive. The case arose from a traffic accident and involved a claim for damages. The court also clarified that a pre-writ Calderbank letter is not a valid offer to settle under Order 22A of the Rules of Court, although it can influence the court's discretion regarding costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding refusal of leave was dismissed. Court clarified Calderbank letters are not statutory offers under Order 22A, impacting cost considerations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Services Limited)AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Koh Swee AnnRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealNo
Judith PrakashJudgeYes
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cindy SimTan JinHwee, Eunice and Lim ChooEng
Subbiah PillaiPillai and Pillai

4. Facts

  1. A traffic accident occurred between a bus driven by an employee of SBS Transit Ltd and Koh Swee Ann’s car in July 2000.
  2. Koh Swee Ann demanded $9,000 in damages from SBS Transit Ltd.
  3. SBS Transit Ltd sent a Calderbank letter offering to settle Koh Swee Ann’s claim for $6,322.
  4. Koh Swee Ann rejected the Calderbank letter.
  5. Koh Swee Ann started an action against SBS Transit Ltd, claiming damages of $8,490.18.
  6. SBS Transit Ltd served a formal offer to settle (OTS) on Koh Swee Ann for $6,322, which was later withdrawn.
  7. SBS Transit Ltd served a second OTS on Koh Swee Ann for $3,161.
  8. The district judge apportioned liability for the accident, finding SBS Transit Ltd 80% liable and ordering them to pay Koh Swee Ann $6,065.85 as damages and costs of $3,500.

5. Formal Citations

  1. SBS Transit Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Bus Services Limited) v Koh Swee Ann, CA 135/2003, [2004] SGCA 26

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Traffic accident occurred between a bus driven by an employee of SBS Transit Ltd and Koh Swee Ann’s car.
Koh Swee Ann demanded $9,000 in damages from SBS Transit Ltd.
SBS Transit Ltd sent a Calderbank letter offering to settle Koh Swee Ann’s claim for $6,322.
Koh Swee Ann rejected the Calderbank letter.
Koh Swee Ann started the original action against SBS Transit Ltd, claiming damages of $8,490.18.
SBS Transit Ltd served a formal offer to settle (OTS) on Koh Swee Ann for $6,322.
SBS Transit Ltd withdrew the first OTS.
SBS Transit Ltd served a second OTS on Koh Swee Ann for $3,161.
Conclusion of trial; the district judge apportioned liability for the accident between SBS Transit Ltd and Koh Swee Ann.
SBS Transit Ltd applied to the Magistrate’s Court for leave to appeal against the costs order.
Lai Kew Chai J dismissed the originating summons in the High Court for leave to appeal against the costs order.
Summons in chambers heard in the originating summons asking for leave to appeal against Lai J’s order.
Summons in chambers heard in the originating summons asking for leave to appeal against Lai J’s order.
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Appealability of Refusal of Leave to Appeal
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
      • Finality of High Court's decision on leave to appeal
  2. Effect of Calderbank Letter on Costs
    • Outcome: The court held that a pre-writ Calderbank letter is not a valid offer to settle under Order 22A, but it can influence the court's discretion regarding costs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether a pre-writ Calderbank letter is a valid offer to settle under Order 22A
      • Whether successive statutory offers to settle supersede earlier statutory offers to settle

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
In re Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, Ex parte StevensonQueen's BenchYes[1892] 1 QB 609England and WalesCited for the principle that a legal authority's decision to grant or refuse leave to appeal is final and conclusive unless an appeal is expressly given.
Calderbank v CalderbankFamily DivisionYes[1976] Fam 93England and WalesCited to define a 'Calderbank letter' as a 'without prejudice save as to costs' offer to settle.
Lane v EsdaileHouse of LordsYes[1891] AC 210England and WalesCited as the first case to establish the principle that where a legal decision cannot be appealed against except with express permission from a named authority, the decision of that authority whether or not to grant leave is final.
Bland v Chief Supplementary Benefit OfficerCourt of AppealYes[1983] 1 WLR 262England and WalesCited for applying the principle in Ex parte Stevenson to the case of a refusal by the social security commissioner to grant leave to appeal.
R v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex parte EastawayEngland and WalesYes[2000] 1 WLR 2222England and WalesCited for affirming the position that it is absurd to allow an appeal against the decision under a provision designed to limit the right of appeal.
Kemper Reinsurance Co v Minister of FinancePrivy CouncilYes[2000] 1 AC 1United KingdomCited for the principle that the absurdity of allowing an appeal against the refusal of leave is greatest when the appeal is brought to the very tribunal to which it is desired to appeal on the merits.
Shi Fang v Koh Pee HuatCourt of AppealYes[1996] 2 SLR 221SingaporeCited for recognizing the relevance of the Calderbank letter in relation to orders on costs.
Singapore Airlines v Tan Shwu LengCourt of AppealYes[2001] 4 SLR 593SingaporeCited to explain that Order 22A was introduced to spur parties to bring litigation to an expeditious end without judgment and thus to save costs and judicial time.
Teng Lien Yen v SBS Transit LtdSingapore Magistrate's CourtYes[2003] SGMC 10SingaporeCited for the principle that even in circumstances where Calderbank letters may be relevant, the court retains its discretion.
McDonnell v McDonnellCourt of AppealYes[1977] 1 All ER 766England and WalesCited for the principle that the existence of a Calderbank letter influences but does not govern the exercise of a court’s discretion.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 22A Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)
Order 55D r 4 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 21(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 34(2)(b) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Calderbank letter
  • Offer to settle
  • Leave to appeal
  • Costs
  • Jurisdiction
  • Rules of Court
  • Without prejudice save as to costs
  • Final and conclusive

15.2 Keywords

  • appeal
  • Calderbank letter
  • offer to settle
  • costs
  • jurisdiction
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure90
Costs70
Appeal60
Calderbank letter60
Offer to Settle50
Automobile Accidents40
Damages30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Contract Law
  • Costs
  • Settlement