Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matter

Au Wai Pang v Attorney-General and another matter

OS 1175/2013 was dismissed because the originating summons had not been validly commenced so there was nothing "pending" and the Duty Judge lacked power under s 36(1) SCJA to grant the extension of time; the Court of Appeal lacks original jurisdiction to grant leave to commence committal proceedings and an O 57 r 16(3) application is not an appeal and is only available where the Court of Appeal has statutory jurisdiction or the matter is incidental to a valid appeal.

Citation
[2014] SGCA 23
Parties
Applicant in Os59/2014; Respondent in Os1175/2013: Au Wai Pang; Respondent in Os59/2014; Applicant in Os1175/2013: Attorney-General
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Case Number
Originating Summonses Nos 59 of 2014 and 1175 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (os 1175/2013 and OS 59/2014) / Hearing in the Court of Appeal on Jurisdictional Challenges to an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings and an Application to Appear and Contest That Originating Summons
Outcome
OS 1175/2013 dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings, Originating Summons, Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, Extension of Time, O 57 R 16(3) Rules of Court, S 36(1) SCJA, Incidental Appellate Jurisdiction, Ex Parte Vs Inter Partes Procedure
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Appellate Jurisdiction Statutory Interpretation Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings Originating Summons Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal Extension of Time +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Au Wai Pang

Applicant in Os59/2014; Respondent in Os1175/2013

Attorney-General

Respondent in Os59/2014; Applicant in Os1175/2013

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (os 1175/2013 and OS 59/2014) / Hearing in the Court of Appeal on Jurisdictional Challenges to an Ex Parte Application for Leave to Commence Committal Proceedings and an Application to Appear and Contest That Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single Duty Judge had power under s 36(1) SCJA to grant an extension of time where the originating summons had not been validly commenced
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Appeal has original jurisdiction to grant leave to commence committal proceedings for contempt of court under O 57 r 16(3) ROC
  3. 3 Whether an application under O 57 r 16(3) is an appeal or a fresh application and whether O 57 r 16(3) can confer jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

OS 1175/2013 was dismissed because the originating summons had not been validly commenced so there was nothing "pending" and the Duty Judge lacked power under s 36(1) SCJA to grant the extension of time; the Court of Appeal lacks original jurisdiction to grant leave to commence committal proceedings and an O 57 r 16(3) application is not an appeal and is only available where the Court of Appeal has statutory jurisdiction or the matter is incidental to a valid appeal.

Court Disposition

OS 1175/2013 dismissed

Orders

  • OS 1175/2013 dismissed
  • No order as to costs