Koh Toi Choi v Lim Geok Hong: Striking Out Defence & Leave to Appeal
Koh Toi Choi sought leave to appeal against the District Judge's decision to strike out his Defence and Third Party Statement of Claim in MC Suit No 25641 of 2005. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, granted Koh leave to appeal on 29 May 2007, finding that the trial judge had erred in law by striking out the Defence and Third Party Statement of Claim at the trial stage and that the trial judge misdirected herself in concluding that there was no defence disclosed in the Defence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Koh's application for leave to appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for leave to appeal striking out of defence. The High Court granted leave, finding the trial judge erred in striking out the defence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Toi Choi | Plaintiff | Individual | Application for leave to appeal allowed | Won | |
| Lim Geok Hong | Defendant | Individual | Appeal allowed | Lost | |
| Ang Kee Huat Charcoal Trader (suing as a firm) | Defendant | Partnership | Appeal allowed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Oi Peng | Low Yeap Toh & Goon |
| Roy Manoj | Roy & Partners |
| M P Rai | Cooma & Rai |
4. Facts
- Koh was involved in an accident along Bendemeer Road on 12 December 2004.
- Koh was the driver of taxi SH 6884J.
- The other vehicles involved were a motor car owned by Lim Geok Hong and a lorry owned by Ang Kee Huat Charcoal Trader.
- The trial judge struck out Koh’s Defence and Third Party Statement of Claim.
- Final judgment was entered against Koh for $11,460 with costs.
- Koh applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the trial judge.
5. Formal Citations
- Koh Toi Choi v Lim Geok Hong and Another, OS 15/2007, [2007] SGHC 87
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Accident occurred along Bendemeer Road | |
| Accident Statement given by Koh | |
| MC Suit No 25641 of 2005 filed | |
| Defence dated | |
| Final judgment entered against Koh | |
| Affidavit by Leo Chi Yung dated | |
| Koh applied to the District Court for leave to appeal | |
| High Court allowed Koh’s application for leave to appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking out of Defence
- Outcome: The court held that the trial judge misdirected herself in concluding that there was no defence disclosed in the Defence and in so doing, erred as to the law.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Weak defence
- Unfairness to one party
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the trial judge made a prima facie error of law.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal
- Setting aside the judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajendran a/l Palany v Dril-Quip Asia Pacific Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 274 | Singapore | Cited in support of the argument that the defence did not show a prima facie defence to Lim’s claim, and the third party proceedings did not show any basis for a claim by Koh for contribution. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited as one of the three guidelines for granting leave to appeal. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited as one of the three guidelines for granting leave to appeal. |
| IW v IX | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR 135 | Singapore | Clarified that ‘prima facie error’ related to errors of law, not fact. |
| The "Tokai Maru" | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a weak defence does not mean there is no defence and the pleadings should not be struck out on that account. |
| Instrumatic, Ltd v Supabrase | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1969] 1 WLR 519 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a judge is said to have erred in law if his discretion was exercised in a way that was plainly wrong. |
| Soh Lup Chee and others v Seow Boon Cheng and another | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 8 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the plaintiff must first prove its case to the court and the task of the defence is to expose the weaknesses and flaws in that case. |
| Chee Siok Chin and another v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR 541 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pleadings were usually struck out at the interlocutory stage of the action in order to save time and costs. |
| Halliday v Shoesmith and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that if the case has reached the point of trial without having been struck out, it must be only in an exceptional case that such an application is granted. |
| Blockbuster Entertainment Limited v James | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] EWCA Civ 684 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that striking out on procedural grounds was only justified in an extreme case especially of a claim that had arrived at the point of trial. |
| Goh Kim Heong & others v A T & J Company Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 262 | Singapore | Cited by Mr. Rai that the court should not grant leave to appeal given the relatively small underlying claim. |
| Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association | N/A | Yes | [1970] 1 All ER 1094 | N/A | A reasonable defence means one which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered |
| Active Timber Agencies Pte Ltd v Allen & Gledhill | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 478 | N/A | A reasonable defence means one which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered |
| Wenlock v Moloney & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1965] 2 All ER 871 | N/A | The hearing of the application should not therefore involve a minute examination of the documents or the facts of the case in order to see whether there is a reasonable defence. |
| A-G of Duchy of Lancaster v London and North Western Railway Co | N/A | Yes | [1892] 3 Ch 274 | N/A | The mere fact that the defence is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out, so long as the pleadings raise some question to be decided by the court |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Section 21(1) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking out
- Leave to appeal
- Prima facie error of law
- Defence
- Third Party Statement of Claim
- Prior collision
- Negligence
15.2 Keywords
- Civil procedure
- Appeals
- Striking out
- Leave to appeal
- Negligence
- Accident
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Appellate Practice | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Striking Out Pleadings