Tommy Choo v Kuntjoro Wibawa: Striking Out Application for Lack of Jurisdiction
The High Court of Singapore heard an application by Kuntjoro Wibawa (the Defendant) to strike out an originating summons filed by Tommy Choo Mark Go & Partners (the Plaintiff) on the grounds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction. The originating summons concerned offers to settle relating to appeals already before the Court of Appeal. The court dismissed the Defendant's application, finding that the High Court had original jurisdiction and the matter was properly before it.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to strike out originating summons for lack of jurisdiction. The court dismissed the application, finding the High Court had original jurisdiction.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tommy Choo Mark Go & Partners | Plaintiff, Respondent | Partnership | Application dismissed | Won | |
| Kuntjoro Wibawa (alias Wong Kin Tjong) | Defendant, Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Anil Balchandani | I.R.B Law LLP |
| Christine Chuah | Optimus Chambers LLC |
4. Facts
- The Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff's originating summons.
- The originating summons concerned offers to settle relating to appeals before the Court of Appeal.
- The Defendant argued the High Court lacked jurisdiction because the offers to settle related to matters on appeal.
- The Plaintiff argued the High Court had original jurisdiction.
- The Court of Appeal has all the authority and jurisdiction of the High Court.
- The High Court has original jurisdiction to hear the originating summons.
5. Formal Citations
- Tommy Choo Mark Go & Partnersv Kuntjoro Wibawa (alias Wong Kin Tjong), HC/OS 430 of 2017HC/SUM 2109 of 2017, [2017] SGHCR 09
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant made an offer to settle document relating to the Appeals. | |
| Plaintiff made an acceptance document relating to the Appeals. | |
| Plaintiff filed Originating Summons 430 in the High Court. | |
| Defendant filed an application in Civil Appeal 226. | |
| Defendant filed an application to strike out Originating Summons 430. | |
| Defendant’s supporting affidavit was formally filed. | |
| A reply affidavit was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. | |
| Defendant filed a final response affidavit. | |
| Application was heard. | |
| Judgment rendered. | |
| Originating Summons 430 is fixed to be heard by the High Court. | |
| Civil Appeal Nos 226, 231 and 232 of 2015 have been fixed for hearing by the Court of Appeal in late July 2017. |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction of the High Court
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court had original jurisdiction to hear the originating summons.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Applicability of Order 22A to Appeals
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on this issue.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of Originating Summons 430
9. Cause of Actions
- Application to strike out originating summons
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 239 | Singapore | Cited as the original High Court decision that led to the appeals in question. |
| The Bunga Melati 5 | N/A | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a case should be struck out if it is clear as a matter of law that the party will not be entitled to the remedy sought. |
| Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings should be struck out if they are manifestly groundless or without foundation or serve no useful purpose. |
| Ong & Ong Pte Ltd v Fairview Developments Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 470 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court retains discretion on whether to enforce an offer to settle, considering fairness and justice. |
| Singapore Airlines Ltd v Tan Shwu Leng | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 43 | Singapore | Cited for the policy of the Order 22A regime – to spur the parties to bring litigation to an expeditious end without judgment, and thus to save costs and judicial time |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A rule 1 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A rule 6 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 1 rule 4(2) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 22A rule 8 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 1 rule 4(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking out
- Jurisdiction
- Originating summons
- Offer to settle
- Rules of Court
- Court of Appeal
- High Court
- Original jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- jurisdiction
- striking out
- civil procedure
- originating summons
- offer to settle
- court of appeal
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Striking out | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Offer to Settle | 70 |
| Jurisdiction | 60 |
| Summary Judgment | 50 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Arbitration | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Jurisdiction
- Striking Out