Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 27
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-08-12
- Judges: Samuel Chan AR
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Ng Zhi Liang
- Defendant/Respondent: Voon Gie Min
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Interim payments
- Statutes Referenced: Administration of Justice Act, Administration of Justice Act 1969, First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Cases Cited: [2007] SGHC 88, [2009] SGHC 89, [2018] SGHCR 7, [2023] SGHC 215, [2025] SGHCR 27
- Judgment Length: 30 pages, 8,727 words
Summary
This case concerns an application by the plaintiff, Ng Zhi Liang, for an interim payment of $100,000 from the defendant, Voon Gie Min, on account of the damages which the defendant may be held liable to pay in the underlying negligence claim. The High Court of Singapore, in a decision by Assistant Registrar Samuel Chan, allowed the application for interim payment after considering the relevant legal principles under Order 13 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021).
The case is significant as it provides guidance on the approach to be adopted by the courts in considering applications for interim payments under the new interim payments regime introduced in the ROC 2021, which differs substantially from the previous regime under the Rules of Court 2014 (ROC 2014). The judgment sets out the relevant legislative history and developments, and analyzes the key differences between the two regimes to determine the applicable legal principles.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiff, Ng Zhi Liang, and the defendant, Voon Gie Min, were involved in a road traffic accident on 6 December 2021. The defendant, who was riding a motorcycle, had collided into the plaintiff as he was crossing a pedestrian crossing. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained several injuries, the most serious of which were in relation to his left leg. These injuries required multiple surgical treatments and left the plaintiff wheelchair-bound for eight months and requiring the use of crutches for a further two and a half years.
The accident also had a significant financial impact on the plaintiff. He claimed to have spent over $50,000 in medical and transport expenses, and also suffered a loss of earnings as he was unable to work at his restaurant in the same capacity as he did previously, although he continued to work on matters that did not require his physical attendance.
On 4 April 2023, the plaintiff filed a negligence claim against the defendant in the State Courts. The matter was subsequently transferred to the General Division of the High Court on 30 July 2024, as the quantum of the plaintiff's claim was likely to exceed $250,000. On 3 December 2024, a consent interlocutory judgment was entered in the plaintiff's favor against the defendant for 90% of the plaintiff's damages to be assessed, with causation, interests, costs, and disbursements reserved to the court hearing the assessment.
On 4 April 2025, the plaintiff filed the present application (Summons No. 922 of 2025) seeking an interim payment of $100,000 from the defendant.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The sole issue to be determined in this case was whether an order for an interim payment should be granted and, if so, for how much.
The statutory basis for the High Court's power to make an order for interim payment was found in paragraph 15 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, which empowers the High Court to order a party in a pending proceeding to make interim payments to another party on account of any damages, debt, or other sum which the party may subsequently be adjudged liable to pay.
The relevant provisions governing the exercise of this power were found in Order 13 Rule 8 of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), which differed substantially from the previous interim payments regime under the Rules of Court 2014 (ROC 2014). This called for a careful examination of the differences between the two regimes and the applicable legal principles under the new ROC 2021 regime.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by highlighting the significant differences between the interim payments provisions in the ROC 2014 and the ROC 2021. Under the ROC 2014, there were two separate rules for interim payments – one for damages (Order 29 Rule 11) and the other for sums other than damages (Order 29 Rule 12). These rules were adopted from the corresponding provisions in the Rules of the Supreme Court (UK), which were introduced in a piecemeal fashion over time.
In contrast, the ROC 2021 consolidated the interim payments regime into a single rule, Order 13 Rule 8, which the court found represented a marked departure from the previous regime. The court noted that this called for a careful examination of the differences between the two regimes, as they would inform the relevance of existing case law and the legal principles to be applied under the new ROC 2021 regime.
The court then analyzed the specific requirements under Order 13 Rule 8 of the ROC 2021, which included the claimant stating the amount of the claim, whether the defendant has admitted liability or has been found liable for any part of the claim, and why the claimant requires an interim payment at that stage of the proceedings. The court also highlighted that it must consider factors such as any contributory negligence, set-off, or counterclaim, as well as the defendant's ability to make the interim payment.
Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the court found that the plaintiff had a strong case against the defendant, as evidenced by the consent interlocutory judgment entered in the plaintiff's favor. The court also noted the significant financial impact the accident had on the plaintiff, who had incurred substantial medical expenses and lost earnings. Considering the defendant's ability to make the interim payment, as the defendant was insured by a Malaysian insurer, the court concluded that an order for interim payment ought to be made.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court, in a decision by Assistant Registrar Samuel Chan, allowed the plaintiff's application for an interim payment of $100,000 from the defendant. The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong case against the defendant and that the interim payment was necessary to alleviate the plaintiff's financial burden arising from the accident.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant as it provides valuable guidance on the approach to be adopted by the courts in considering applications for interim payments under the new interim payments regime introduced in the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021). The judgment sets out the relevant legislative history and developments, and analyzes the key differences between the interim payments provisions in the ROC 2014 and the ROC 2021.
The court's detailed examination of the applicable legal principles under Order 13 Rule 8 of the ROC 2021 will be of great practical importance to legal practitioners, as it helps to establish the framework for assessing interim payment applications in the future. The case also highlights the court's willingness to exercise its discretion to grant interim payments where the applicant has demonstrated a strong case and a genuine need for financial assistance pending the final determination of the matter.
Overall, this judgment provides valuable guidance on the evolving interim payments regime in Singapore and will likely have a significant impact on the way such applications are approached and decided by the courts going forward.
Legislation Referenced
- Administration of Justice Act
- Administration of Justice Act 1969
- First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
Cases Cited
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCR 27 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.