Nim Minimaart v Management Corporation: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Nim Minimaart, a partnership, sued Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 and others for breach of a licence agreement. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the originating summons, finding it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The court clarified the requirements for seeking leave to appeal and the jurisdictional limits of the Court of Appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The court clarified the requirements for seeking leave to appeal and jurisdictional limits.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nim Minimaart (suing as a firm) | Plaintiff | Partnership | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Sambasivam s/o Kunju of Independent Practitioner |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sambasivam s/o Kunju | Independent Practitioner |
| Teh Ee-Von | Infinitus Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Nim Minimaart operated a mini-supermarket in Nim Gardens.
- The Plaintiff and the MCST entered into a licence agreement on 15 January 2006.
- The licence agreement contained a clause for a one-year extension subject to revision of rental.
- The Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendants for breach of the licence agreement.
- The first trial resulted in a settlement agreement and a consent order.
- The Plaintiff alleged pressure from the first DJ to conclude the settlement agreement.
- The High Court set aside the consent order and ordered a retrial.
- The second DJ dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim and granted an injunction against the Plaintiff.
- The Judicial Commissioner dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal.
- The Plaintiff sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal, which was denied.
5. Formal Citations
- Nim Minimaart (suing as a firm) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 and others, Originating Summons No 228 of 2013, [2013] SGCA 54
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff and MCST entered into a licence agreement. | |
| End of initial term of licence agreement. | |
| Notice of Termination served on the Plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the Defendants. | |
| Trial began before the first district judge. | |
| Parties concluded a settlement agreement and recorded a consent order. | |
| Subordinate Courts replied to Plaintiff's complaint. | |
| Plaintiff filed Summons No. 6059 of 2009. | |
| Summons No. 6059 of 2009 was dismissed. | |
| Appeal heard before Steven Chong J. | |
| Chong J allowed the appeal, setting aside the consent order and ordering a retrial. | |
| Retrial heard by the second district judge. | |
| District Court Appeal No. 27 of 2011 was heard by the JC, who dismissed the appeal. | |
| Plaintiff submitted a request for further arguments. | |
| Request for further arguments rejected. | |
| Plaintiff requested waiver of security for costs. | |
| Registry responded to Plaintiff's request. | |
| Plaintiff applied for an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal. | |
| JC dismissed the application for extension of time. | |
| Plaintiff appeared before the Duty Registrar. | |
| Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal against the JC’s decision. | |
| Notice of Appeal rejected by the Registry. | |
| Plaintiff wrote to the Registry seeking clarification. | |
| Registry replied to Plaintiff. | |
| Present originating summons was filed. | |
| Originating summons accepted by the Registry. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the application. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal without leave from the High Court.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirement of leave to appeal
- Extension of time to file application for leave to appeal
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 558
- [2013] 3 SLR 354
- [2013] 2 SLR 880
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court held that it could not review or reconsider the High Court's decision to deny an extension of time.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Trespass
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nim Minimaart (a firm) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for setting aside the consent order and ordering a retrial due to the appearance of undue pressure from the first district judge. |
| Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority and another application | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 558 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party cannot argue that the monetary value of the subject matter exceeds $250,000 after proceeding to trial in the District Court. |
| Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is seised of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by statute. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the law on appeals against interlocutory orders and the overall scheme of the regime. |
| OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 880 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the law on appeals against interlocutory orders and the overall scheme of the regime. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 56 Rule 3 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 57 Rule 17 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Section 29A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Section 34(2)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Section 34(2B) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 11(4) of the Subordinate Courts Act | Singapore |
| Section 22 of the Subordinate Courts Act | Singapore |
| Section 23 of the Subordinate Courts Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Licence Agreement
- Extension of Time
- Leave to Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Security for Costs
- Consent Order
- Judicial Commissioner
- District Judge
- Originating Summons
- District Court Appeal
15.2 Keywords
- Jurisdiction
- Leave to Appeal
- Extension of Time
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 50 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Property Law | 30 |
| Costs | 30 |
| Estoppel | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Jurisdiction