Telecom Credit Inc v Midas United Group Pte Ltd: Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Application
Telecom Credit Inc, the appellant, appealed against a High Court Judge's decision to order a trial to determine Midas United Group Pte Ltd's, the respondent, liability as a garnishee. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant required leave to appeal under para (e) of the Fifth Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, as the Judge's order was an interlocutory order made at the hearing of an interlocutory application. The court found that garnishee show cause proceedings are interlocutory in nature, and the order for a trial did not finally determine the parties' rights.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed due to lack of leave. The court held that an order for trial to determine a garnishee's liability is an interlocutory application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Telecom Credit Inc | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Midas United Group Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Moiz Haider Sithawalla | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
| Lau Yu Don | Tan Rajah & Cheah |
4. Facts
- The appellant obtained a provisional garnishee order against the respondent.
- The High Court Judge ordered a trial to determine the garnishee’s liability.
- The appellant appealed against the Judge’s decision.
- The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appellant needed leave to appeal.
- The appellant did not obtain leave to appeal.
- The court considered whether the Judge’s order was an order at the hearing of any interlocutory application under para (e) of the Fifth Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
5. Formal Citations
- Telecom Credit Inc v Midas United Group Ltd, Civil Appeal No 138 of 2017, [2018] SGCA 73
- Telecom Credit Inc v Star Commerce Pte Ltd (Midas United Group Pte Ltd, garnishee), , [2017] SGHC 300
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Civil Appeal No 138 of 2017 filed | |
| High Court Judge ordered a trial to determine garnishee’s liability | |
| Telecom Credit Inc v Star Commerce Pte Ltd (Midas United Group Pte Ltd, garnishee) [2017] SGHC 300 issued | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that leave to appeal was required because the order for a trial to determine the garnishee's liability was an interlocutory order made at the hearing of an interlocutory application.
- Category: Procedural
- Interlocutory Application
- Outcome: The court determined that garnishee show cause proceedings are interlocutory in nature.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Telecom Credit Inc v Star Commerce Pte Ltd (Midas United Group Pte Ltd, garnishee) | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 300 | Singapore | Cited as the decision under appeal, where the Judge ordered a trial to determine whether the respondent owed a debt to the judgment debtor. |
| OpenNet Pte Ltd v Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 880 | Singapore | Cited for the discussion on whether an order refusing leave for judicial review was an order made at the hearing of an “interlocutory application”. |
| Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 354 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of the words “order” and “interlocutory application” in para (e) of the Fifth Schedule. |
| The “Nasco Gem” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the meaning of “interlocutory application” in para (e) of the Fifth Schedule in the light of OpenNet and Dorsey. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England | Endorsed as the definition of “interlocutory order”, where a judgment or order is final if it finally disposes of the rights of the parties, and is interlocutory if it does not. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for approving the Bozson definition of interlocutory order in Singapore. |
| Salaman v Warner | N/A | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England | Cited to contrast the Bozson definition with the definition supplied in Salaman v Warner. |
| Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 817 | Singapore | Cited by the appellant to argue that since garnishee proceedings take place after judgment is secured, they are not interlocutory. Overruled in the present judgment. |
| PT Bakrie Investindo v Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Ltd Partnership | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1116 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s decision that the order refusing the adjournment was an order made at the hearing of an interlocutory application within the meaning of para (e) of the Fifth Schedule of the Act. |
| The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) v Westacre Investments Inc and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the legal burden on the appellant to prove that the garnishee owes the respondent a debt. |
| Societe Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Compagnie Internationale de Navigation | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 WLR 21 | England | Cited for the garnishee procedure has remained essentially unchanged in England since it was first introduced in 1854. |
| William Henry Rogers and Maria Henrietta Riches, trading as Rogers & Son v William Whiteley | N/A | Yes | [1892] AC 118 | England | Cited for the provisional garnishee order provisionally attaches the debt due from the garnishee to the judgment debtor so that it cannot be paid to the judgment debtor. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Garnishee proceedings
- Interlocutory application
- Leave to appeal
- Interlocutory order
- Show cause proceedings
- Provisional garnishee order
- Absolute garnishee order
15.2 Keywords
- Garnishee
- Interlocutory
- Appeal
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Garnishee Proceedings | 95 |
| Appeal | 85 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Appellate Practice | 70 |
| Judgments and Orders | 65 |
| Summary Judgment | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Garnishee Proceedings
- Interlocutory Applications