Sumitomo v Salim: Applications to Adduce Further Evidence and File Single Case at Substantive Appeals

In Sumitomo Corp Capital Asia Pte Ltd v Salim Anthony, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on 3 September 2004, addressed multiple applications related to four appeals. The applications included requests to adduce additional evidence and to file a single case and core bundle for the appeals. The court, presided over by Andrew Ang JC, determined that it lacked jurisdiction as a single judge to rule on the adduction of fresh evidence, adjourning those applications to be heard by the full Court of Appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

The court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the applications for the adduction of fresh evidence and directed that they be adjourned to be heard before the full Court of Appeal.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Applications to adduce further evidence and file a single case and core bundle at substantive appeals. The court considered the scope of its power to make incidental directions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Mizuho Corporate Bank LtdRespondentCorporationApplication adjournedNeutral
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Singapore BranchRespondentCorporationApplication adjournedNeutral
Sumitomo Corp Capital Asia Pte LtdAppellant, PlaintiffCorporationApplication granted in partPartial
Salim AnthonyRespondent, DefendantIndividualApplication adjournedNeutral
The Sumitomo Trust and Banking Co LtdRespondentCorporationApplication adjournedNeutral
Sakura Merchant Bank (S) LtdRespondentCorporationApplication adjournedNeutral
The Norinchukin BankRespondentCorporationApplication adjournedNeutral
Dresdner Bank AktiengesellschaftRespondentCorporationApplication adjournedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ang Cheng HockAllen and Gledhill
Edmund EngAllen and Gledhill
Lok Vi MingRodyk and Davidson
Ajinderpal SinghRodyk and Davidson
Loh Kia MengRodyk and Davidson
Kabir SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Shivani RetnamDrew and Napier LLC
Samuel ChackoColin Ng and Partners

4. Facts

  1. Multiple appellants sought to adduce additional evidence at substantive appeals.
  2. Respondents also filed motions to adduce additional evidence.
  3. The applications were made before a single judge of the Court of Appeal.
  4. The court considered its power under s 36(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
  5. The court questioned whether granting liberty to adduce further evidence fell within its power.
  6. The court considered the meaning of 'incidental direction' in the Act.
  7. The court adjourned the applications to be heard before the full Court of Appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sumitomo Corp Capital Asia Pte Ltd v Salim Anthony and Other Applications, CA 50/2004 (NM 66/2004, 75/2004), CA 51/2004 (NM 65/2004, 74/2004), CA 53/2004 (NM 67/2004, 69/2004, 73/2004), CA 54/2004 (NM 68/2004, 70/2004, 76/2004), [2004] SGCA 38

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Admissibility of Additional Evidence
    • Outcome: The court ruled it lacked jurisdiction as a single judge to determine the admissibility of additional evidence, adjourning the applications to the full Court of Appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conditions for adducing fresh evidence
      • Impact of fresh evidence on appeal outcome
  2. Scope of Court's Power
    • Outcome: The court clarified the scope of its power under s 36(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, distinguishing between directions involving and not involving the decision of the appeal.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of 'incidental direction'
      • Power to make interim orders

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Permission to adduce additional evidence
  2. Permission to file a single case and core bundle

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bank of India v Rai Bahadur Singh & AnorCourt of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR 592SingaporeCited regarding the intent of the legislature in relation to section 36(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and avoiding burdening a three-judge court with interlocutory applications.
Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp LtdCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR 353SingaporeCited for the Court of Appeal's view of the first limb of s 36(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act as a facilitative provision.
Benson v BensonN/AYes[1941] 2 All ER 335N/ACited to support the interchangeable use of the terms 'order' and 'direction'.
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 3 All ER 745N/ACited for the conditions to be satisfied for the adduction of fresh evidence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Adduce additional evidence
  • Single case
  • Core bundle
  • Incidental direction
  • Supreme Court of Judicature Act
  • Section 36(1)
  • Jurisdiction
  • Interlocutory application

15.2 Keywords

  • Court of Appeal
  • Additional Evidence
  • Jurisdiction
  • Civil Procedure
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Jurisdiction80
Civil Procedure75
Civil Practice70
Judgments and Orders60
Pleadings40
Asset Recovery30
Property Law20
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Evidence
  • Jurisdiction