Tommy Choo, Mark Go & Partners v Kuntjoro Wibawa

Choo Han Teck J:

[5] The taxation proceedings was due to be heard on 19 November 2013, but was adjourned to 3 December 2013. On 3 December 2013, Mr Almenoar informed the assistant registrar that he intended to apply to be discharged as the respondent’s solicitor. The assistant registrar, according to counsel, suggested that parties attend before Andrew Ang J for clarification of the orders made by him on 30 August 2013. The clarification was fixed to be heard on 8 January 2014 by Andrew Ang J, who held that he was functus officio and that a clarification of that nature should not be determined by him.

[7] Mr Bachoo Mohan, counsel for the applicant, submitted that the assistant registrar had no power to order a stay of an order made by a judge. In principle, he was right, although the assistant registrar would have the power to adjourn the hearing. In that event, the applicant might still have appealed but on the different ground that it was wrong to adjourn the taxation proceedings.

[9] In my view, the allegation by the respondent cannot be resolved by an Originating Summons application. It is clearly a contractual claim which is disputed on the facts if not in law as well. The application in OS 204 should have been begun by writ, but that is a technical and legal issue.