Anwar Siraj and Another v Ting Kang Chung John and Another

Lee Seiu Kin J:

[1] The first defendant (“Ting”) is the arbitrator in arbitration proceedings between the plaintiffs and the second defendant (“the Contractor”) and has written an arbitration award (“the Award”), although to date it has not been collected by either side. On 24 September 2008, the plaintiffs took out this originating summons for an order, inter alia, to set aside the Award and refer any outstanding disputes with the Contractor to the courts for resolution. On 31 October 2008, the plaintiffs filed Summons No 4814 of 2008 (“the Summons”) with the following prayers:

[2] The plaintiffs, who were unrepresented, and counsel for the defendants appeared before me on 19 January 2009 solely for the purpose of prayer 5 of the Summons. After hearing the submissions of the plaintiffs and counsel for the defendants, I declined to make the order prayed for in prayer 5. I informed the plaintiffs that criminal complaints are investigated by the police and if any criminal offence is disclosed as a result of such investigation, the matter is referred to the Public Prosecutor who decides whether an offence is made out and if so, whether to prosecute the offender. While a judge may refer criminal complaints to the police for investigation, he has no power to order them to conduct an investigation if they decide not to do so, or to speed up any investigation. I would add that even if I had such power, in the circumstances of this case, in particular the fact that there was no connection between the events complained of in the three Magistrate’s complaints referred to in prayer 5 of the Summons and the dispute in this originating summons or any of the related cases, viz Originating Summons No 1807 of 2006 and Suit No 348 of 2006, I would not be inclined to exercise such discretion to make those orders.