Sunlink Engineering Pte Ltd v Koru Bena Sdn Bhd

1. The appellants, Koru Bena Sdn Bhd (“Koru Bena”), who were sued by the respondents, Sunlink Engineering Pte Ltd (“Sunlink”), for the sum of $46,051.90, applied to have the action transferred from the High Court to the Subordinate Courts. The application was dismissed by the Assistant Registrar. I allowed Koru Bena’s appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s decision and now give the reasons for my decision.

2. Koru Bena, a Malaysian company with a registered office in Singapore, were the contractors for the construction of Ping Yi Primary School. Sunlink, a Singapore company, were their sub-contractors for the supply of material, labour, tools and equipment required for the fabrication and installation of structural steel roof trusses for the school. Sunlink, which claimed that Koru Bena breached the contract by failing to pay them the sum of $46,051.90, instituted legal proceedings in the High Court to recover the amount allegedly owed to them. As the sum claimed by Sunlink from Koru Bena was very much less than the minimum amount required for a claim to be heard in the High Court, the latter understandably applied for the action to be transferred from the High Court to the Subordinate Courts.

3. As far as the power of the High Court to transfer an action to the Subordinate Courts is concerned, reference should first be made to section 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (“SCJA”) (Cap 322), which provides as follows:

Paragraph 10 of the First Schedule of the SCJA provides as follows:

4. Reference should also be made to section 37 of the Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321), which provides as follows:

5. The circumstances under which a case may be transferred from the High Court were considered by Chan Sek Keong JC, as he then was, in Australian Builders Co Pty Ltd v Ng Tai Tuan [1987] SLR 539. He said that the words of the above-mentioned section of the Subordinate Courts Act give the High Court an unfettered discretion to transfer at any time any proceedings commenced by writ of summons to the District Court. Stressing that each application for a transfer of a case from the High Court must be considered on its own merits, he added that it is not desirable to lay down specific rules as to when the High Court should exercise its discretion.

6. The present case does not involve complex issues of law or fact and the only reason given by Sunlink for wanting this action to be heard in the High Court is that this enables them to take advantage of the Malaysian Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 if they should succeed in their claim against Koru Bena in the High Court. This Malaysian Act only concerns judgments of superior courts and while the Singapore High Court is regarded as a superior court, the Subordinate Courts are not.

7. There are good reasons for requiring a plaintiff who is claiming a relatively small sum from the defendant to institute legal proceedings in the Subordinate Courts. The fact that the defendant is a foreigner whose country’s legislation on the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments only recognises High Court judgments does not, without more, allow the plaintiff to insist that his case be heard in the High Court if it ought to be heard by a district judge or a magistrate in the normal course of events. Otherwise, a different set of rules will, without exception, apply to every such foreign defendant and there could be a misallocation of High Court resources as time may be unjustifiably spent on claims which ought to be dealt with by a magistrate or a district judge.

8. While each case must depend on its own facts, much more was required in the present case to persuade me not to exercise my discretion to have the suit transferred to the Subordinate Courts. After all, Koru Bena have a registered office in Singapore and have managed to secure a multi-million dollar contract for the construction of a Singapore school. It is most unlikely that Koru Bena would choose to abandon their business interests in Singapore and flee the jurisdiction just to avoid paying Sunlink $46,051.90 if the latter should succeed in their action in the Subordinate Courts. These facts appear to have been totally ignored by Sunlink.

9. After taking all circumstances into account, I had no doubt that the resources of the High Court should not be utilised in this case to hear a claim for a relatively small sum. As such, I allowed Koru Bena’s appeal with costs.

.