Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao: Appealability of Summary Judgment Under Rules of Court 2021

In Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application to strike out the appellant's notice of appeal against a decision of a Judge of the General Division regarding a summary judgment. The underlying claim involved a breach of a loan agreement. The court dismissed the application, holding that the appellant's right of appeal was governed by the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and was not an abuse of process. The court ordered the respondent to pay costs to the appellant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs to the appellant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a summary judgment. The court held that the appellant had the right to appeal under the SCJA and the appeal was not an abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

24 March 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Wee Ching	Appellant	Individual	Application Dismissed	Won	Narayanan Sreenivasan of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Partheban s/o Pandiyan of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram of Trident Law Corporation Tan Lai Tian Timothy of Trident Law Corporation Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik of Trident Law Corporation Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi of Trident Law Corporation
Wang Piao	Respondent	Individual	Application to Strike Out Appeal	Lost	Kronenburg Edmund Jerome of Braddell Brothers LLP Chan Yu Jie of Braddell Brothers LLP Lim Yanqing Esther Candice of Braddell Brothers LLP Tang Kai Qing of Braddell Brothers LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kannan Ramesh	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
See Kee Oon	Judge of the Appellate Division	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Narayanan Sreenivasan	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Partheban s/o Pandiyan	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram	Trident Law Corporation
Tan Lai Tian Timothy	Trident Law Corporation
Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik	Trident Law Corporation
Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi	Trident Law Corporation
Kronenburg Edmund Jerome	Braddell Brothers LLP
Chan Yu Jie	Braddell Brothers LLP
Lim Yanqing Esther Candice	Braddell Brothers LLP
Tang Kai Qing	Braddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

Mr. Wang claimed Mr. Lee breached a loan agreement by failing to repay US$1.95m.
Mr. Lee defended by claiming the US$1,099,911.66 was for purchasing a Vantage Unit on behalf of Mr. Wang, Mr. Tio, and/or Apek.
The AR granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Wang for US$1.95m.
Mr. Lee appealed the AR's decision, and the Judge dismissed the appeal.
Mr. Wang submitted that Mr. Lee had no right to file the appeal in AD 122 because of the One Appeal Rule.
Mr. Wang submitted that AD 122 was an abuse of process to delay proceedings and vex Mr. Wang.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao, Civil Appeal No 122 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 9

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2022-11-22	Mr Wang commenced OC 406 against Mr Lee, claiming breach of a loan agreement.
2022-12-16	Mr Lee filed his defence.
2023-01-13	Mr Wang filed HC/SUM 104/2023 seeking summary judgment against Mr Lee.
2023-04-14	The AR granted summary judgment in favour of Mr Wang in the sum of US$1.95m, with interest and costs.
2023-04-24	Mr Lee filed an appeal in HC/RA 78/2023 against the AR’s decision.
2023-05-15	Mr Lee took out HC/SUM 1463/2023 to amend his defence in OC 406 and to bring a counterclaim against Mr Wang, Mr Tio and Apek.
2023-05-16	Mr Lee filed HC/SUM 1479/2023 for a stay of enforcement of judgment pending the final resolution of RA 78.
2023-08-04	The Judge dismissed SUM 1463.
2023-09-06	Mr Lee filed AD/OA 43/2023 for an extension of time to file an application for permission to appeal the Judge’s decision to dismiss SUM 1463.
2023-11-09	Mr Lee’s permission to appeal application – AD/OA 56/2023 was filed.
2023-11-14	Mr Lee appealed the decision in RA 78 in AD 122.
2023-11-28	Mr Wang filed SUM 48 to strike out AD 122.
2024-01-15	OA 56 was dismissed.
2023-10-03	RA 78 was dismissed by the Judge.
2024-02-20	Hearing date.
2024-03-25	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Right of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant had a right to appeal the Judge’s decision in RA 78 and file the notice of appeal in AD 122, pursuant to the SCJA.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529
  - [2013] 3 SLR 354
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court declined to strike out AD 122 as an abuse of process or in the interests of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2019] 2 SLR 564
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 188
  - [2020] 1 SLR 97
Interpretation of Rules of Court
- Outcome: The court held that O 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021 does not provide for a One Appeal Rule and simply lays down a procedural rule for how a party’s statutory rights of appeal should be exercised.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Manufacturing
Semiconductor

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King	High Court	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 529	Singapore	Cited for the principle that courts in Singapore are creatures of statute and are seised of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating them.
Dorsey James Michael v World Sport Group Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 354	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the SCJA statutorily delimits parties’ rights of appeal by stipulating matters that are (a) appealable as of right, (b) appealable with leave (ie, permission) and (c) non-appealable.
Suntech Power Investment Pte Ltd v Power Solar System Co Ltd (in liquidation)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 564	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal where the appeal is plainly not competent, or where the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court.
Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 188	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will only exercise its power to strike out a notice of appeal in “clear and obvious cases”.
Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 97	Papua New Guinea	Cited for the principle that the court has the jurisdiction to stay an appeal pending payment by the appellant to the respondent of the costs of the action below, the jurisdiction should be exercised only in special or exceptional circumstances.
Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 216	Singapore	Reference to the judgment where the Judge dismissed SUM 1463.
Lee Wee Ching v Wang Piao	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 277	Singapore	Reference to the judgment where RA 78 was dismissed by the Judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021
Order 18 r 4(1) ROC 2021
Order 18 r 2(1) ROC 2021
Order 18 r 4(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Loan Agreement
Summary Judgment
One Appeal Rule
Abuse of Process
Rules of Court 2021
Supreme Court of Judicature Act
Vantage Unit

15.2 Keywords

appeal
summary judgment
rules of court
abuse of process
loan agreement

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Appellate Practice	90
Civil Procedure	90
Civil Litigation	50

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Appeals
Contract Law