Ng Kong Choon v Tang Wee Goh: Claim-Splitting Prohibition under Subordinate Courts Act

In Ng Kong Choon v Tang Wee Goh, the Singapore High Court addressed whether s 35 of the Subordinate Courts Act prohibits an insurer from suing through its insured to recover vehicle repair costs after the insured had already sued for uninsured loss and personal injury arising from the same road traffic accident. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the plaintiff had impermissibly divided his cause of action in contravention of s 35 of the Subordinate Courts Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Registrar’s Appeal dismissed with costs. The Magistrate Court Suit stands as struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on claim-splitting prohibition under s 35 of the Subordinate Courts Act in a road traffic accident case.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ng Kong ChoonPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Tang Wee GohDefendant, RespondentIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Ng Kong Choon (NKC) and Tang Wee Goh (TWG) were involved in a road traffic accident.
  2. NKC's vehicle was hit from the rear by TWG's vehicle.
  3. NKC filed multiple writs against TWG for uninsured loss, personal injury, and cost of repairs.
  4. The claims for uninsured loss and personal injury were settled out of court.
  5. Allianz, NKC's insurer, brought a subrogation action to recover the cost of repairs.
  6. TWG sought to strike out the Repairs Writ, arguing it was a breach of s 35 of the Subordinate Courts Act.
  7. Two discharge vouchers were executed by NKC in relation to the settlements.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ng Kong Choon v Tang Wee Goh, Magistrates’ Courts Suit No 11423 of 2013 (Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 166 of 2013), [2016] SGHC 83
  2. Ng Kong Choon v Tang Wee Goh, , [2013] SGMC 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Road traffic accident occurred
Allianz paid the cost of repairs
MC Suit No 7643 of 2010 filed by NKC to recover his uninsured loss
Uninsured Loss Writ served
Global Law wrote to TWG and NTUC Income to give notice of Allianz’s intention to bring a subrogation action
MC Suit No 20269 of 2010 filed
MC Suit No 8560 of 2011 filed
Order for substituted service granted
Discharge voucher executed
Notice of Discontinuance in respect of MC Suit 7643/2010 filed
MC Suit No 1204 of 2012 filed to recover damages for personal injury
Personal Injury Writ served
April 2011 Writ served on NKC by way of posting a copy of the same on NKC’s front door
April 2011 Writ served on NKC by way of posting a copy of the same on the notice board of the Subordinate Courts
Global Law wrote to NTUC Income
Discharge voucher executed
Notice of Discontinuance in respect of MC Suit 1204/2012 filed
Repairs Writ filed
TWG entered appearance
TWG filed Summons No 9210 of 2013 to strike out MC Suit 11423/2013
Hearing date
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Claim-Splitting Prohibition
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff had impermissibly divided his cause of action in contravention of s 35 of the Subordinate Courts Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Division of cause of action
      • Bringing multiple actions
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 2 SLR 1
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
  2. Interpretation of Discharge Vouchers
    • Outcome: The court held that the 2012 Discharge Voucher was to settle the personal injury claim only and the cost of repairs claim was outside the scope of the 2012 Discharge Voucher.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of release
      • Intention of parties
    • Related Cases:
      • [2002] 1 AC 251
      • [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Insurance
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
The “Bunga Melati 5”Court of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 546SingaporeCited for the language used to describe the Repairs Writ as “legally unsustainable”.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited to define the umbrella doctrine of res judicata and its three conceptually distinct though interrelated principles.
Pioneer Concrete (Vic.) Pty. Ltd. v L. Grollo & Co. Pty. Ltd.; Consolidated Quarries Ltd. v L. Grollo & Co. Pty. Ltd.Supreme Court of VictoriaYes[1973] VR 473AustraliaCited for observations on the absence of any statutory rule preventing a plaintiff from dividing his cause of action in a court of unlimited jurisdiction.
Henderson v HendersonHigh Court of ChanceryYes(1843) 3 Hare 100England and WalesCited as the basis for the NTUC Income's objection to any subrogation action.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm)House of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 1United KingdomCited for the principle that there can be an abuse of process in litigating issues already determined in prior litigation or concluded by settlement.
Bank of Credit and Commercial International SA v Ali and othersHouse of LordsYes[2002] 1 AC 251United KingdomCited for the rule of interpretation that applies to a general release.
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029SingaporeCited for the approach to construction that resonates in determining the scope of a release.
Davidson v North Down Quarries LimitedHigh Court of Northern IrelandYes[1988] NI 214Northern IrelandCited as an example of a case with striking similarities to the present case, where there was no breach of the provision equivalent to s 35 because there were two causes of action.
Brunsden v HumphreyCourt of AppealYes(1884) 14 QBD 141England and WalesCited for the proposition that a wrongful act resulting in personal injury and property damage gives rise to two causes of action, but ultimately not followed in Singapore.
Buckland v PalmerCourt of AppealYes[1984] 1 WLR 1109England and WalesCited for the question of whether separate actions can be brought for different parts of damaged property.
Cahoon v FranksSupreme Court of CanadaYes(1967) 63 DLR (2d) 274CanadaCited as a case where Brunsden was not followed, and the court held that the amendments did not set up a new cause of action.
Multistar Holdings Ltd v Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the definition of "cause of action" as the essential factual material that supports a claim.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for establishing a single test to determine the imposition of a duty of care in all claims arising out of negligence, irrespective of the type of damages claimed.
Yan Jun v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 752SingaporeCited as an illustration of a situation where a common set of facts could give rise to multiple causes of action.
In re Aykroyd, in a Plaint of Grimbly v AykroydCourt of ExchequerYes(1847) 1 Ex. 479England and WalesCited for the relevant provision was the 63rd section of the Small Debts Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95.
Victor Romans v Bradley BarrettCourt of AppealYes(1979) 28 WIR 99JamaicaCited for a similar provision in s 73 of the Judicature (Resident Magistrates) Act.
Lun Tai Insurance Co. Ltd. and Lee Ying-Lin alias Lee Kwok-KeeDistrict CourtYes[1965] HKCU 85Hong KongCited for the relevant provision was s 16 of the District Court (Civil Jurisdiction and Procedure) Ordinance (Cap 336).
Seagate Technology Pte Ltd and another v Goh Han KimHigh CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 836SingaporeCited for the insured’s duty not to prejudice the insurer’s right of subrogation.
Koh Chai Kwang v Teo Ai Ling (by her next friend, Chua Wee Bee)High CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 610SingaporeCited as an example of an application for provisional damages under s 18(2) read with paragraph 16 of the First Schedule of the SCJA.
Greenline-Onyx Envirotech Phils, Inc v Otto Systems Singapore Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 40SingaporeCited for the public policy of encouraging litigants to settle their differences rather than to litigate them to the finish.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court
O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court
O 20 r 5(5) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
O 10 r 1(3) of the ROC 2006

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Subordinate Courts ActSingapore
Section 35 of the Subordinate Courts ActSingapore
Section 52(2) of the Subordinate Courts ActSingapore
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
Section 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Claim-splitting
  • Subrogation
  • Discharge voucher
  • Cause of action
  • Res judicata
  • Uninsured loss
  • Personal injury
  • Cost of repairs
  • Division of cause of action
  • Multiplicity of proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • claim-splitting
  • subrogation
  • road traffic accident
  • Singapore
  • Subordinate Courts Act
  • negligence
  • discharge voucher

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Tort Law
  • Insurance Law