Lee Chye Chong v SBS Transit: Transfer of Proceedings & Employment Act Interpretation

Lee Chye Chong and others applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore to transfer Magistrate’s Court Suit No 13887/2019 to the High Court. The suit, commenced by Chua against SBS Transit Ltd, alleges breach of contract and violations of the Employment Act. The court, presided over by Audrey Lim J, ruled in favor of the applicants, allowing the transfer, finding that the case involves important questions of law and qualifies as a test case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons application allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application to transfer breach of contract and Employment Act case to High Court allowed. Case involves important legal questions and is a test case.

1.7 Decision Date

9 June 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chua Qwong Meng	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
SBS Transit Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Jaikanth Shankar of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Davinder Singh of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Chua Shu Yuan Delvin of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Stella Ng Yu Xin of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Hanspreet Singh Sachdev of Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Lee Chye Chong	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Chian Poh Seng	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Fung Chean Seng	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Tan Ting Hock Robin	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Thiyagu a/l Balan	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Gan Kim Kiam	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Huzainal bin Hussein	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Lim You Onn	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Chiew Yi Yee	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Meerah Mohamed bin Halideen	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Razak bin Hasim	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers
Mohamad Sani bin Din	Applicant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Ravi s/o Madasamy of Carson Law Chambers

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Audrey Lim	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ravi s/o Madasamy	Carson Law Chambers
Jaikanth Shankar	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Davinder Singh	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Chua Shu Yuan Delvin	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Stella Ng Yu Xin	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC
Hanspreet Singh Sachdev	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC

4. Facts

Chua commenced MC 13887 against SBS for breach of contract and violations of the Employment Act.
Thirteen plaintiffs filed suits against SBS for similar matters pertaining to their employment as bus drivers.
The State Courts suggested MC 13887 be heard as a test case.
SBS agreed to MC 13887 being a test case, subject to certain terms.
Chua applied to transfer MC 13887 to the High Court, arguing it involves important questions of law.
The total value of the subject matter in the MC Suits collectively amounts to some $720,000.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Chye Chong and others v SBS Transit Ltd, Originating Summons No 225 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 139

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-04-03	Chua's employment contract commenced
2019-09-20	Chua commenced MC 13887 against SBS
2019-12-01	Eight other persons commenced similar proceedings against SBS
2019-12-12	Chua filed his list of disputed issues in the State Courts
2020-02-01	Eight other persons commenced similar proceedings against SBS
2020-03-04	State Courts suggested MC 13887 be heard as a test case
2020-04-27	SBS's lawyer wrote to Mr Ravi regarding MC 13887 being a test case
2020-04-30	Mr Ravi replied, agreeing to the terms set out in Annex A
2020-05-08	State Courts agreed to the request to have MC 13887 as a test case
2020-09-01	Parties filed their respective witnesses’ affidavits of evidence-in-chief
2021-02-10	Chua set down his claim for trial in the State Courts
2021-02-11	Mr Ravi sought SBS’s consent to have MC 13887 heard in the High Court
2021-02-17	SBS replied, stating that it was not agreeable to the proposal
2021-02-22	State Courts fixed the trial of MC 13887 for hearing on 17, 20 and 21 May 2021
2021-03-10	Chua filed the OS
2021-04-30	Judgment reserved
2021-06-10	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Transfer of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court allowed the transfer of proceedings to the High Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Important question of law
  - Test case
  - Other sufficient reason
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the breach of contract itself, as the case was regarding the transfer of proceedings.
- Category: Substantive
Interpretation of Employment Act
- Outcome: The court found that the interpretation of specific provisions of the Employment Act constituted an important question of law.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Transfer of Proceedings to High Court
Damages to be assessed

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Violation of Employment Act

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Employment Litigation

11. Industries

Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin	High Court	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 1003	Singapore	Cited to define the requirements for a consent order.
Keppel Singmarine Dockyard Pte Ltd v Ng Chan Teng	High Court	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 1015	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court retains discretion as to whether to transfer a case, balancing the interests of the parties.
Tan Kok Ing v Tan Swee Meng and others	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 657	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'important question of law' in the context of transferring a case from a Magistrate’s Court to a District Court.
Patterson v Ellis	Court of first instance	Yes	[1957] 1 WLR 857	N/A	Cited to support the principle that an important question of law or fact should affect more than the immediate interests of the parties.
TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 540	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an important question of law should be one that affects more than the immediate interests of the parties.
Lim Choon Seng v Lim Poh Kwee	Federal Court	Yes	[2020] 5 MLJ 587	Malaysia	Cited for the definition of 'test case' from various jurisdictions.
Re Compania Merabello San Nicholas SA	N/A	Yes	[1972] 3 All ER 448	N/A	Cited for the definition of 'test case' as a case in which there are other cases in which parties are awaiting with interest the outcome of the first case.
Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union Inc v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2010] NZEMPC 56	New Zealand	Cited for the definition of 'test case' as a case where there is no precedent giving the parties or the court sufficient guidance as to how a new statutory provision is to be interpreted and applied.
First Choice Capital Fund Ltd. v First Canadian Capital Corp.	N/A	Yes	[1999] S.J. No. 333	N/A	Cited for the definition of 'test case' as a case management tool to expedite the resolution of multiple disputes involving multiple plaintiffs based on the same legal and factual issues.
CEPU v Australian Postal Corporation	Federal Magistrates Court	Yes	[2010] FMCA 461	Australia	Cited by SBS to argue that a test case should raise case management or other concerns which would make the matter unsuitable for determination by the State Courts, but rejected by the court.
Ng Djoni v Miranda Joseph Jude	High Court	Yes	[2018] 5 SLR 670	Singapore	Cited by SBS to argue that there was a delay on Chua’s part, but distinguished by the court.
Skading Anne v Yeo Kian Seng	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 546	Singapore	Cited by SBS to argue that there was a delay on Chua’s part, but distinguished by the court.
Tan Kee Huat v Lim Kui Lin	High Court	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 765	Singapore	Cited by the court to support the decision to allow a transfer of the personal injuries case to the High Court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Employment Act (Cap 91, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (Cap 67)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Originating Summons
Test Case
Important Question of Law
State Courts Act
Employment Act
Breach of Contract
Transfer of Proceedings
Essential Service
Rest Day
Overtime Pay

15.2 Keywords

Transfer of Proceedings
Employment Act
Breach of Contract
Test Case
Important Question of Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Transfer of Cases	90
Employment Law	85
Contract Law	60
Civil Procedure	50

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Employment Law
Contract Law