Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group: Pre-Action Interrogatories Appealability
In Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the respondent's application to strike out the appellant's civil appeal. The appeal concerned an order by the High Court allowing the respondent to serve pre-action interrogatories on the appellant. The Court of Appeal held that such orders are appealable, as they do not fall under the restrictions outlined in s 34(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with paragraph (i) of the Fourth Schedule, which pertains to interlocutory applications. The court found that an application for leave to administer pre-action interrogatories is not an interlocutory application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Application to strike out Civil Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding pre-action interrogatories. The Court of Appeal held that orders for pre-action interrogatories are appealable, dismissing the striking out application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorsey James Michael | Appellant | Individual | Application to strike out Civil Appeal dismissed | Won | |
| World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application to strike out Civil Appeal allowed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- World Sport Group Pte Ltd commenced Originating Summons No 839 of 2012/H seeking to administer pre-action interrogatories on Dorsey James Michael.
- The assistant registrar allowed the application in part.
- Dorsey James Michael appealed against the assistant registrar’s decision to a judge in chambers.
- The Judge ordered that the respondent be at liberty to administer on the appellant the interrogatories set out in Schedule 1 of the Order of Court.
- Dorsey James Michael filed its Notice of Appeal in CA 167/2012.
- World Sport Group Pte Ltd filed Summons No 71 of 2013 to strike out the appellant’s Notice of Appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 167 of 2012/M (Summons No 71 of 2013), [2013] SGCA 31
- Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd, , [2013] SGHC 78
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons No 839 of 2012/H was first heard before an assistant registrar. | |
| World Sport Group Pte Ltd commenced Originating Summons No 839 of 2012/H. | |
| Registrar’s Appeal No 404 of 2012/C was heard on appeal. | |
| Registrar’s Appeal No 404 of 2012/C was heard on appeal. | |
| Dorsey James Michael filed its Notice of Appeal in Civil Appeal No 167 of 2012/M. | |
| World Sport Group Pte Ltd filed Summons No 71 of 2013 to strike out the appellant’s Notice of Appeal. | |
| Summons No 71 of 2013 was heard by the court. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Appealability of Orders for Pre-Action Interrogatories
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that an order giving or refusing pre-action interrogatories is appealable, as it does not fall under the restrictions outlined in s 34(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act read with paragraph (i) of the Fourth Schedule.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of s 34(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Interpretation of the Fourth Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Whether an application to administer pre-action interrogatories is an 'interlocutory application'
- Related Cases:
- [2013] SGCA 24
- [2013] SGCA 16
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to administer pre-action interrogatories
- Order for pre-action discovery of documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Pre-Action Interrogatories
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Sports
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is conferred by statute. |
| Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 | Constitution of the Republic of Singapore Tribunal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 803 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any discussion on statutory interpretation must take place against the backdrop of s 9A of the Interpretation Act. |
| Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 669 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reference may be made to extrinsic materials such as parliamentary debates even if, on a plain reading, the words of the statutory provision are unambiguous or do not produce unreasonable or absurd results. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purposive approach mandated by s 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act is paramount and must take precedence over any other common law principles of statutory interpretation. |
| Mills v Meeking | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1990) 169 CLR 214 | Australia | Cited with approval the passage of Dawson J’s judgment in Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the question whether a given order is in fact interlocutory or final had troubled the courts in Singapore for some time. |
| Salaman v Warner | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England and Wales | Cited for the 'application' test enunciated in Salaman v Warner [1891] 1 QB 734 at 736. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Cited for the “order” test or “Bozson” test which was stated by Lord Alverstone CJ in Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council [1903] 1 KB 547 at 548. |
| Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 114 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale for the requirement that the judge certify, pursuant to s 34(1)(c) of the old SCJA, that no further arguments were required. |
| OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 24 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the amendments brought about by Act 30 of 2010 introduced a new category-approach regime based on the type of interlocutory application and the eventual order made thereon. |
| Maldives Airport Co Ltd and another v GMR Malé International Airport Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] SGCA 16 | Singapore | Cited as directly on point and supports the proposition that an application to administer pre-action interrogatories is not an interlocutory application. |
| Norwich Pharmacal Co and Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners | House of Lords | Yes | [1974] AC 133 | United Kingdom | Cited to support the principle established by the seminal decision of the House of Lords in Norwich Pharmacal Co and Others v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1974] AC 133. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 34(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act Fourth Schedule paragraph (i) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pre-action interrogatories
- Interlocutory application
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Fourth Schedule
- Originating summons
- Rules of Court
- Statutory interpretation
- Purposive approach
15.2 Keywords
- Pre-action interrogatories
- Appealability
- Interlocutory order
- Statutory interpretation
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Interlocutory Applications | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Arbitration | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Statutory Interpretation