Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat: Striking Out Notice of Appeal & Court-Appointed Expert Decision
In Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an application to strike out the appellant's Notice of Appeal regarding a dispute over a tenancy agreement. The respondents sought to strike out the appeal, arguing it was irregular, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, holding that the respondents failed to demonstrate a clear and obvious case for striking out the appeal. The court clarified the principles applicable to striking out notices of appeal and emphasized that the appellant's submissions should be examined at the actual hearing of the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with no order on costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to strike out a Notice of Appeal, clarifying rules on appeals and court expert decisions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Riduan bin Yusof | Appellant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Khng Thian Huat | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Neutral | Hri Kumar, Wilson Wong |
| Choy Mei Har | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Neutral | Hri Kumar, Wilson Wong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Hri Kumar | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Wilson Wong | Drew and Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- The appeal arose out of a dispute over a tenancy agreement between the parties.
- The respondents were the owners of a property tenanted by the appellant for three successive periods.
- The formal lease for the third tenancy was never signed, but the parties signed a letter of intent.
- The appellant was habitually late in making rental payments.
- The respondents served a notice of termination, which the appellant rejected.
- The respondents claimed against the appellant for double rent for wrongfully holding over the property.
- The appellant was held liable for damages in the sum of $79,170.00.
5. Formal Citations
- Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and Another, CA 72/2004, [2005] SGCA 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First tenancy ran from January 1995 to March 1997. | |
| Second tenancy ran from April 1997 to March 2000. | |
| Third tenancy ran from April 2000 to March 2003. | |
| Respondents claimed double rent for wrongfully holding over the property from 1 May 2001 to 10 April 2003. | |
| Property was vacated on 19 April 2003. | |
| Proceedings transferred to the High Court as Suit No 929 of 2003. | |
| Judgment of 19 July 2004. | |
| Appellant discharged his previous solicitors on 11 August 2004. | |
| Appellant filed the Notice of Appeal on 19 August 2004. | |
| Trial judge indicated that he did not wish to hear further arguments from the appellant on the issue of damages on 27 August 2004. | |
| Decision Date: 07 February 2005 |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether appellant prevented from appealing due to clause stating no appeal from decision of court-appointed expert
- Outcome: The court held that the decision of the judge was separate from the decision of the court expert, even though the judge adopted the court expert's findings.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether appeal on costs should be automatically struck out due to appellant's failure to obtain leave to appeal on damages
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal was not required precisely because the Notice of Appeal was not based solely on the ground of costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether notice of appeal irregular
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents' contention that the Notice of Appeal was irregular was no more than a bare assertion.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether notice of appeal frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process
- Outcome: The court held that the respondents failed to show a clear and obvious case that the appeal was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for double rent
- Damages for failing to restore property
- Damages for consequential loss of usage
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aviagents Ltd v. Balstravest Investments Ltd | N/A | No | [1966] 1 W.L.R. 150 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where an appeal is plainly not competent. |
| Aviagents Ltd v. Balstravest Investments Ltd | N/A | No | [1966] 1 All E.R. 450 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where an appeal is plainly not competent. |
| Burgess v. Stafford Hotel Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1215 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court and that the power to strike out should be confined to clear and obvious cases. |
| Burgess v. Stafford Hotel Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1990] 3 All E.R. 222 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court and that the power to strike out should be confined to clear and obvious cases. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v. Lee Kuan Yew | N/A | No | [1991] S.L.R. 118 | Singapore | Cited in relation to striking out of notices of appeal are usually linked to O. 57, r. 4 (time for appealing). |
| Ooi Phee Cheng v. Kok Yoon San | N/A | No | [1951] 1 M.L.J. 135 | N/A | Cited in relation to striking out of notices of appeal are usually linked to O. 57, r. 4 (time for appealing). |
| Hong Kim Sui v Malayan Banking Bhd | N/A | No | [1971] 1 MLJ 289 | N/A | Cited for the principle that unless the alleged irregularity was so fundamental or serious that the court ought not to exercise its discretion under O 2 r 1 of the Rules, “mere irregularities” do not render the proceedings void. |
| Dato Wong Gek Meng v Pathmanathan a/l Mylvaganam | N/A | No | [1998] 5 MLJ 560 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the Notice of Appeal should only be struck out if the breach for non-compliance was so fundamental that “it went to the very root of the legal process”. |
| Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] SLR 798 | Singapore | Cited for the judicial policy to afford a litigant the right to institute a bona fide claim before the courts and to prosecute it in the usual way. |
| The Tokai Maru | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to strike out an action for abuse of process is to be exercised only in cases of an exceptional nature. |
| Afro Asia Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Haridass Ho & Partners | N/A | No | [2003] 2 SLR 491 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the words “frivolous or vexatious” under O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the Rules. |
| Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau | N/A | No | [1990] SLR 1251 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the words “frivolous or vexatious” under O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the Rules. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | No | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the phrase “abuse of process” under O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules. |
| Lonrho v Fayed (No 5) | N/A | No | [1993] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited for the principle that if an action was not brought bona fide for the purpose of obtaining relief but for some other ulterior or collateral purpose, it might be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court. |
| Tan Yeow Khoon v Tan Yeow Tat | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the parties had agreed to accept a price that their nominated valuer had determined so that litigation could thereby be avoided, they were bound by that valuation even if the valuer was wrong. |
| Allason v Campbell | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1997] EWCA Civ 1668 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process of the court, on the footing that there is no possibility that the grounds of appeal are capable of argument. |
| Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | No | [2002] EWCA Civ 1155 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the fact that the appeal is now relevant on costs only is a matter which can be brought to the attention of the court hearing the substantive appeal. |
| Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Co SA v Okta Crude Oil Refinery AD | N/A | No | [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 645 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the provision allowing the striking out of notices of appeal should not lure advocates into tactical skirmishing or into manoeuvres designed to wear down the opposition. |
| Khng Thian Huat v Riduan bin Yusof | High Court | No | [2005] 1 SLR 130 | Singapore | Reference to the High Court proceedings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 57 r 3 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| Order 57 r 4(c) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| O 2 r 1 of the Rules |
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 28(4) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Tenancy agreement
- Notice of appeal
- Court-appointed expert
- Double rent
- Holding over
- Irregular
- Frivolous
- Vexatious
- Abuse of process
- Terms of reference
- Manifest error
15.2 Keywords
- Civil procedure
- Appeal
- Tenancy
- Striking out
- Court expert
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Tenancy Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Striking out