Case Details
- Citation: [2022] SGHC(A) 28
- Title: Grassland Express & Tours Pte Ltd & Anor v M. Priyatharsini & 5 Ors
- Court: Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date of decision: 19 July 2022
- Procedural reference: Civil Appeal No 39 of 2022 (Summons No 15 of 2022)
- Judges: Woo Bih Li JAD, Kannan Ramesh J and Hoo Sheau Peng J
- Appellants/Respondents (in CA 39): (1) Grassland Express & Tours Pte Ltd; (2) Grassland Express Pte Ltd
- Respondents/Applicants (in SUM 15): (1) M Priyatharsini; (2) R Manokaran; (3) Muniandy Barvathi; (4) Navindran s/o Manokaran; (5) Xie Lianzhu @ Ye Lianzhu; (6) Wee Chye Hee
- Underlying suits: Suit No 1044 of 2018 and Suit No 1307 of 2018
- Underlying plaintiffs (Suit 1044/2018): (1) R Manokaran; (2) Muniandy Barvathi; (3) M Priyatharsini; (4) Navindran s/o Manokaran
- Underlying defendants (Suit 1044/2018): (1) Chuah Ah Leng; (2) Zenwan (M) Sdn Bhd; (3) Grassland Express & Tours Pte Ltd
- Third party (Suit 1044/2018): MMIP Services Sdn Bhd
- Underlying plaintiffs (Suit 1307/2018): (1) Wee Chye Hee; (2) Xie Lianzhu @ Ye Lianzhu
- Underlying defendants (Suit 1307/2018): (1) Chuah Ah Leng; (2) Zenwan (M) Sdn Bhd; (3) Grassland Express Pte Ltd
- Third party (Suit 1307/2018): MMIP Services Sdn Bhd
- Legal areas: Civil Procedure; Striking out; Appeals; Leave/Permission to appeal
- Statutes referenced: Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969 (including s 29A and the Fifth Schedule)
- Other statutory/Rules context: Rules of Court 2021 (Order 19 referenced in the judgment extract)
- Cases cited: [2022] SGHC 39
- Judgment length: 19 pages; 5,061 words
- Key dates (as reflected in the extract): (a) 24 Feb 2022: interlocutory judgment on liability; (b) 16 Mar 2022: costs orders made; (c) 12 Apr 2022: Notice of Appeal filed (NA 39); (d) 22 Apr 2022: SUM 15 filed; (e) 19 Jul 2022: decision allowing SUM 15 and striking out NA 39
Summary
This Appellate Division decision concerns the procedural requirements for appealing from the General Division of the High Court, specifically where a Notice of Appeal is framed as an appeal “against the whole of the decision” but, on its face and in substance, is directed at costs orders made after an interlocutory judgment on liability. The dispute arose from two related personal injury actions brought by holidaymakers injured in a road accident while travelling on a double-decker coach between Genting Highlands and Singapore.
The High Court Judge had earlier delivered an interlocutory judgment on liability on 24 February 2022, with damages to be assessed and costs to be dealt with separately. Subsequently, on 16 March 2022, the Judge made costs and disbursements orders by correspondence. The appellants then filed a Notice of Appeal on 12 April 2022 (NA 39) against the “whole of the decision” dated 16 March 2022. The respondents applied to strike out NA 39 on the basis that (i) permission to appeal was required because the appeal related only to costs or fees for hearing dates, and (ii) no such permission had been obtained.
The Appellate Division allowed the striking-out application and held that NA 39 was, in substance, an appeal confined to the costs orders. Because permission was required under the Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969 (s 29A read with the Fifth Schedule) and was not obtained, the Notice of Appeal was struck out. The court’s reasoning emphasised the proper construction of the Notice of Appeal and the significance of the relevant time period for appeal, rejecting attempts to characterise a costs-only appeal as a broader challenge to the liability judgment.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The underlying dispute involved holidaymakers (the “Customers”) who were travelling from Genting Highlands back to Singapore on 31 August 2016. They were passengers on a double-decker luxury coach (the “Bus”). En route, the Bus was involved in a road accident, and the Customers sustained injuries. The Customers commenced actions seeking damages for their injuries.
The defendants in the suits included Singapore-incorporated companies (the “Companies”) which, on the pleadings and the court’s findings, had undertaken under relevant contracts to transport the Customers from Singapore to Genting Highlands and back by bus, and to do so with reasonable care. The Companies’ contractual obligations were therefore central to liability.
On 24 February 2022, the High Court Judge delivered an interlocutory judgment on liability in favour of the Customers. The Judge’s decision included findings that the Companies were liable for failing to provide the transportation service with reasonable care. Damages were to be assessed, and the court directed that costs would be dealt with separately in the two suits. The interlocutory judgment thus resolved liability but did not finally determine damages or costs.
After liability was determined, the court directed parties to file submissions on costs by a specified date. The parties complied with the timetable, and on 16 March 2022 the Judge made costs and disbursements orders against the Companies in respect of each of the two suits. Thereafter, the Judge directed parties to write in by 21 March 2022 if there were objections to the costs and disbursements orders made by letter dated 16 March 2022.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The Appellate Division identified two linked issues. First, it had to determine whether NA 39 was properly characterised as an appeal against the costs orders only, in which case permission to appeal would be required. Second, if NA 39 was not confined to costs and instead extended to the liability judgment, the court would have to consider whether the appeal was filed out of time.
The permission requirement was anchored in the Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969. In particular, s 29A provides that in certain categories of cases, permission of the appellate court is required before an appeal may be brought from the General Division. The Fifth Schedule then specifies categories of decisions that are appealable only with permission, including interlocutory decisions and, crucially, decisions where “the only issue in the appeal relates to costs or fees for hearing dates”.
Accordingly, the central legal question was one of construction and substance: whether the appellants’ Notice of Appeal, although worded as an appeal against the “whole of the decision” dated 16 March 2022, was in reality an appeal limited to costs and disbursements. If so, the absence of permission meant the appeal should be struck out.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting out the procedural chronology and the content of NA 39. The Notice of Appeal filed on 12 April 2022 stated that it was an appeal against the “whole of the decision” of the Judge “given on 16-03-2022” in each of the two suits. This wording was significant because the liability judgment had been delivered on 24 February 2022, whereas 16 March 2022 related to costs and disbursements orders. The respondents argued that the appellants had effectively appealed only the costs orders, and that such an appeal required permission.
The appellants advanced three main arguments. First, they relied on the Notice’s language that it was “against the whole of the decision” of the Judge. Second, they contended that the “judgment extracted” by the respondents dated 16 March 2022 dealt with liability and costs. Third, they argued that the trial was a “whole” and that the relevant time for appeal should run only when all issues, including costs, were resolved. In essence, the Companies sought to treat the costs orders as part of a broader decision such that permission was not required and the appeal was timely.
The Appellate Division rejected the appellants’ attempt to reframe what was being appealed. The court emphasised that the statutory permission regime is triggered where the only issue in the appeal relates to costs or fees for hearing dates. The court therefore looked beyond the appellants’ characterisation and examined what the Notice of Appeal actually targeted. The Notice referred expressly to the Judge’s decision given on 16 March 2022. On the facts, 16 March 2022 was the date on which the Judge made costs and disbursements orders by correspondence. The liability determination had already occurred on 24 February 2022.
In doing so, the court also addressed the context of the earlier procedural attempts by the Companies. The record showed that counsel had previously attempted to file a purported appeal on 24 March 2022 in the underlying casefile, which was rejected for procedural deficiencies (including failure to comply with the relevant form and failure to indicate that it was an appeal). A further attempt to file a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on 25 March 2022 was also deficient: it was filed out of time, filed to the wrong court, and lacked a certificate for security for costs. These events were not merely background; they illustrated that the Companies were aware of the need to comply with appellate procedure and time limits, and that they had not sought an extension of time when filing NA 39.
The court then considered the relevant time period for filing an appeal. Although the extract indicates that the court’s analysis of the time period was part of the structured issues, the court’s conclusion that NA 39 was costs-only meant that the permission question was decisive. The court held that the Companies did not obtain permission to appeal against the costs orders. Under s 29A read with the Fifth Schedule, where the only issue relates to costs or fees for hearing dates, permission is required. The Companies did not apply for such permission.
Accordingly, the court treated NA 39 as an appeal confined to the costs orders. It therefore held that the appeal should be struck out for want of permission. The court’s approach reflects a practical and purposive construction of appellate notices: the court will not allow parties to circumvent statutory permission requirements by drafting a Notice of Appeal in broad terms when, in substance, the appeal is directed at a costs decision made after liability has been determined.
What Was the Outcome?
The Appellate Division allowed SUM 15 and struck out NA 39. The practical effect was that the Companies’ appeal could not proceed because it was treated as a costs-only appeal requiring permission, which had not been obtained.
As a result, the costs and disbursements orders made by the High Court Judge on 16 March 2022 remained undisturbed, and the Companies were left to pursue whatever further procedural steps were available within the constraints of the statutory permission regime and applicable time limits.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is a useful procedural authority for practitioners dealing with appeals from interlocutory or post-judgment orders in Singapore. It underscores that the court will look at the substance of what is being appealed, not merely the wording of the Notice of Appeal. Where a Notice of Appeal is framed as an appeal against the “whole of the decision” but the referenced decision date corresponds to costs orders, the appellate court may construe the appeal as confined to costs.
For litigators, the case highlights the importance of obtaining permission where required under s 29A and the Fifth Schedule. In particular, where the only issue relates to costs or fees for hearing dates, permission is mandatory. Failure to obtain permission can lead to striking out, regardless of whether the appellant believes the appeal is “against the whole decision” or whether the appellant argues that the time for appeal should run from a later stage.
Finally, the decision serves as a cautionary tale about appellate filing discipline. The Companies’ earlier missteps—filing in the wrong place, filing to the wrong court, filing out of time, and omitting security for costs—were part of the procedural narrative that the court considered when assessing the overall approach. Practitioners should ensure that Notices of Appeal are correctly drafted, filed in the correct forum, within time (or accompanied by an extension application), and that any statutory permission requirements are satisfied at the outset.
Legislation Referenced
- Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed), s 29A
- Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed), Fifth Schedule (in particular para 3(f))
- Rules of Court 2021 (Order 19 referenced in the judgment extract)
Cases Cited
- [2022] SGHC 39 (R Manokaran and others v Chuah Ah Leng and others and another)
Source Documents
This article analyses [2022] SGHCA 28 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.