Aries Telecoms v ViewQwest: Leave to Appeal & Interlocutory Applications
In a suit between Aries Telecoms (M) Berhad and ViewQwest Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, addressed Aries' application for a declaration that no leave to appeal was required regarding a prior order. The main action involved a claim by Aries against ViewQwest for conversion of IT equipment. The court declared that no leave to appeal was required. The court also stated that if it was wrong on this issue, it would have granted the alternative prayers sought.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Declared that no leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was required.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Aries Telecoms sought declaration that no leave to appeal was required against an order. The court declared no leave was required, addressing interlocutory vs final orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aries Telecoms (M) Berhad (formerly known as V Telecoms Berhad) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application granted | Won | Troy Yeo |
| ViewQwest Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application denied | Lost | John Sze, Nicola Loh |
| Fiberail Sdn Bhd | Third Party | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Troy Yeo | Chye Legal Practice |
| John Sze | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
| Nicola Loh | Joseph Tan Jude Benny LLP |
4. Facts
- Aries sought a declaration that no leave to appeal was required.
- The main action was a claim by Aries against ViewQwest for conversion.
- ViewQwest consented to an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed.
- Aries filed Summons 5786 for determination of a preliminary issue.
- The preliminary point was whether Aries was entitled to an account of profits.
- Aries also sought to claim punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages.
- The court decided Aries was not entitled to claim an account of profits or certain damages.
5. Formal Citations
- Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party), Suit No 860 of 2013 (HC/Summons No 974 of 2017), [2017] SGHC 83
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Interlocutory judgment granted in favor of Aries against ViewQwest. | |
| Summons 5786 heard by the court. | |
| Court decided Aries was not entitled to claim an account of profits or punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages. | |
| Aries filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the 7 February 2017 Order. | |
| Court declared that no leave was required to appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court declared that no leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was required.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interlocutory application
- Final order
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 3 SLR 354
- [1903] 1 KB 547
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
- Interlocutory vs Final Order
- Outcome: The court determined whether the order was interlocutory or final in nature.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1903] 1 KB 547
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that no leave to appeal is required
- Account of profits
- Punitive damages
- Exemplary damages
- Aggravated damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Conversion
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Telecommunications
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sports Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any judgment or order of the High Court is ordinarily appealable as of right, subject to any contrary law. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | King's Bench | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Cited for the 'order' test to determine if a judgment is final or interlocutory: Does the judgment or order, as made, finally dispose of the rights of the parties? |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the 'order' test and the meaning of 'dispose' in the context of determining whether an order is final or interlocutory. |
| Downeredi Works Pte Ltd v Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 1070 | Singapore | Cited to note that Wellmix is binding on the High Court as a decision of the Court of Appeal. |
| Salaman v Warner | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the 'application' test, which is different from the 'order' test. |
| Lim Chi Szu Margaret v Risis Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 300 | Singapore | Cited for the view that an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed is a final order. |
| Strathmore Group Ltd v A M Fraser | Privy Council | Yes | [1997] 2 AC 172 | New Zealand | Cited for the point that there is no logical reason to draw a distinction between interlocutory judgments obtained in chambers versus open court. |
| White v Brunton | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1984] QB 570 | England and Wales | Cited for Sir John Donaldson MR’s reasoning in the context of split hearings. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish White v Brunton in the context of Singapore. |
| The “Xin Chang Shu” | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1195 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that a wrongful arrest order was an interlocutory one for the purpose of para (e) of the Fifth Schedule SCJA. |
| The “Nasco Gem” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited with approval in numerous Court of Appeal decisions handed down after amendments to the SCJA. |
| Citiwall Safety Glass Pte Ltd v Mansource Interior Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] SLR 797 | Singapore | Cited with approval in numerous Court of Appeal decisions handed down after amendments to the SCJA. |
| OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 880 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that an order was final in the sense that it effectively disposed of a party’s substantive claim to relief. |
| ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and three ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 20 | Singapore | Cited as an illustration where an appeal was filed to the Court of Appeal without applying for leave to do so. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the three situations where leave to appeal will be granted. |
| Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 196 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to be considered for an extension of time to appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 rule 12 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 33 rule 2 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 56 rule 3(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leave to appeal
- Interlocutory application
- Final order
- Interlocutory judgment
- Account of profits
- Conversion
15.2 Keywords
- leave to appeal
- interlocutory
- final order
- conversion
- account of profits
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Interlocutory Applications
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals