TG Master Pte Ltd v Tung Kee Development: Jurisdiction for Further Arguments After Trial & Penalty Rule
In TG Master Pte Ltd v Tung Kee Development (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Goh Yihan JC, addressed whether the court has jurisdiction to hear further arguments after a trial, and the application of the penalty rule. Following the release of the initial judgment, the plaintiff requested further arguments. The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear further arguments after a trial and affirmed its original decision. The court also addressed the plaintiff's arguments regarding the penalty rule, finding them unpersuasive.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Decision in the Judgment affirmed; High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear further arguments after a trial.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Supplemental Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses jurisdiction to hear further arguments after trial and penalty rule in contract law. Judgment affirms original decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG Master Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Corporation | Decision in the Judgment affirmed | Lost | |
| Tung Kee Development (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Corporation | Counterclaim Allowed | Won | |
| Yung, Man Tung | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Individual | Counterclaim Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Following the release of the initial judgment, the plaintiff requested further arguments.
- The court directed the parties to address whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear further arguments after a trial.
- The plaintiff argued that the court has inherent jurisdiction to hear further arguments.
- The plaintiff argued that the sum of $500,000 paid for each of the eight Options to Purchase was the agreed consideration for their rental for two and a half years.
- The plaintiff argued that the relevant clauses of the Options to Purchase are not penal in nature.
5. Formal Citations
- TG Master Pte Ltd v Tung Kee Development (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 321 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 64
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit filed | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment issued | |
| Plaintiff requested further arguments | |
| Request for further arguments agreed to | |
| Plaintiff's Further Arguments dated | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial |
7. Legal Issues
- Jurisdiction to Hear Further Arguments After Trial
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear further arguments after a trial.
- Category: Procedural
- Penalty Rule
- Outcome: The court held that the relevant clauses of the Options to Purchase were penal in nature.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TG Master Pte Ltd v Tung Kee Development (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 316 | Singapore | The judgment being supplemented. |
| Thomson Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a judge has inherent jurisdiction to recall a decision and hear further arguments as long as the order is not perfected. Distinguished by the court. |
| Long Well Group Ltd and others v Commerzbank AG and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 164 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the court has inherent jurisdiction to hear further arguments, even after trial. Disagreed with by the court. |
| Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 411 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between substantive and non-substantive amendments to court orders. |
| Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 114 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of further arguments, allowing a second opportunity to argue a case on the merits. |
| Retrospect Investment (S) Pte Ltd v Lateral Solutions Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 1 SLR 763 | Singapore | Cited for the court's inherent jurisdiction and power to clarify the terms of its orders and give consequential directions. |
| Thu Aung Zaw v Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio) | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1260 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court can make non-substantive amendments to its orders so long as the amendment only corrects an irregularity and does not substantively vary the decision. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of jurisdiction and powers of a court. |
| Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah | Unknown | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 348 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of jurisdiction and powers of a court. |
| Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 340 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's jurisdiction must be established before the court can consider what powers it possesses and may exercise. |
| ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited for the recommendation to retain the right to request for further arguments in Singapore. Distinguished by the court. |
| In re Harrison’s Share under a Settlement | Unknown | Yes | [1954] 3 WLR 156 | United Kingdom | Cited for the position in common law that the court has the inherent jurisdiction to hear further arguments before the judgment or order is extracted. |
| Tan Chin Hoon and others v Tan Choo Suan (in her personal capacity and as executrix of the estate of Tan Kiam Toen, deceased) and others and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 306 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court recalled its previous order after hearing further arguments. Distinguished by the court. |
| Muhammad Adam bin Muhammad Lee (suing by his litigation representatives Noraini bte Tabiin and Nurul Ashikin bte Muhammad Lee) v Tay Jia Rong Sean | High Court | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 1045 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the court acceded to the defendant's request for further arguments. Distinguished by the court. |
| Ethoz Capital Ltd v Im8ex Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited in support of the argument that the payment of the Further Sum was a primary obligation. Disagreed with by the court. |
| Hon Chin Kong v Yip Fook Mun and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 534 | Singapore | Cited as the governing case concerning the law relating to deposits and the penalty doctrine. |
| Roult v North West Strategic Health Authority | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] EWCA Civ 444 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that the rule does not give a judge, in effect, power to hear an appeal from themselves in respect of a final order. |
| Edwards v Golding | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 416 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that the court's jurisdiction is exercisable where there is additional material before the court in the form of evidence (or, possibly, argument). |
| SCT Finance Ltd v Bolton | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] EWCA Civ 56 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that this particular power does not allow any court at any time 'simply to reverse itself if it happens to change its mind'. |
| Coles v Burke | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | (1987) 10 NSWLR 429 | Australia | Cited to show that the rule is concerned with the misconduct or dishonourable conduct of the person who procured the judgment which warrants an exceptional recourse. |
| Randall v City of Canada Bay Council (No 4) | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2015] NSWSC 1759 | Australia | Cited to show that the purpose of r 36.15(1) UCPR 2005 is facultative and deals with a matter going to the integrity of the administration of justice itself. |
| In re L and another (Children) (Preliminary Finding: Power to Reverse) | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 1 WLR 634 | United Kingdom | Cited to show that these foreign jurisdictions have recognised, to varying degrees, the courts’ inherent jurisdiction to reverse a decision at any time before the order is perfected. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2014 |
| O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 3 r 2(8) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 3 r 2(2) |
| O 3 r 1 of the ROC 2021 |
| O 20 r 11 of the ROC 2014 |
| Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 No 3132) (UK) |
| r 3.1(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998 No 3132) (UK) |
| Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Reg No 418 of 2005) (NSW) |
| r 36.15 General power to set aside judgment or order (cf DCR Part 13, rule 1, Part 31, rule 12A; LCR Part 11, rule 1, Part 26, rule 3)(1) A judgment or order of the court in any proceedings may, on sufficient cause being shown, be set aside by order of the court if the judgment was given or entered, or the order was made, irregularly, illegally or against good faith.(2) A judgment or order of the court in any proceedings may be set aside by order of the court if the parties to the proceedings consent. |
| r 36.16 Further power to set aside or vary judgment or order (cf SCR Part 40, rule 9)(1) The court may set aside or vary a judgment or order if notice of motion for the setting aside or variation is filed before entry of the judgment or order.…(3) In addition to its powers under subrules (1) and (2), the court may set aside or vary any judgment or order except so far as it—(a) determines any claim for relief, or determines any question (whether of fact or law or both) arising on any claim for relief, or(b) dismisses proceedings, or dismisses proceedings so far as concerns the whole or any part of any claim for relief.… |
| r 36.17 Correction of judgment or order (“slip rule”) (cf SCR Part 20, rule 10; DCR Part 17, rule 10; LCR Part 16, rule 10)If there is a clerical mistake, or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, in a judgment or order, or in a certificate, the court, on the application of any party or of its own motion, may, at any time, correct the mistake or error. |
| Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 (Can) |
| r 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194 (Can) |
| Amending59.06 (1) An order that contains an error arising from an accidental slip or omission or requires amendment in any particular on which the court did not adjudicate may be amended on a motion in the proceeding. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06 (1).Setting Aside or Varying(2) A party who seeks to,(a) have an order set aside or varied on the ground of fraud or of facts arising or discovered after it was made;(b) suspend the operation of an order;(c) carry an order into operation; or(d) obtain other relief than that originally awarded,may make a motion in the proceeding for the relief claimed. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06 (2). |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| s 29B of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Amendment) Act 2010 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) (1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Further arguments
- Jurisdiction
- Penalty rule
- Inherent jurisdiction
- Substantive amendments
- Non-substantive amendments
- Options to Purchase
- Primary obligation
- Secondary obligation
15.2 Keywords
- Further arguments
- Jurisdiction
- Penalty rule
- Contract law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Further Arguments | 90 |
| Jurisdiction | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Property Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Jurisdiction