View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

288 Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2003) 187 The party who would like the two matters to be heard by the same court may apply under Order 4 Rule 1 (Consolidation, etc., of causes or matters) of the Rules of Court to consolidate the matters, have them heard at the same time, or to have one heard immediately after the other, or to have one matter stayed, pending the determination of the other matter. 6.4.1.1 Order 4 Rule 1 188 Order 4 Rule 1 states as follows: 1. —(1) Where two or more causes or matters are pending, then, if it appears to the Court — (a) that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; (b) that the rights to relief claimed therein are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or (c) that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this Rule, the Court may order those causes or matters to be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just or may order them to be tried at the same time or one immediately after another or may order any of them to be stayed until after the determination of any other of them. (2) An order for consolidation must be in Form 1 and shall direct that the cause or matter in which the application is made shall thence forward be carried on in such other cause or matter and that the title of such other cause or matter be amended by adding thereto the title of the cause or matter in which the application is made. 6.4.1.2 To consolidate, try at the same time, or try in immediate succession 189 It is submitted that an order under Order 4 Rule 1 for the civil suit to be consolidated, tried at the same time, or tried in immediate succession with the ancillary matters proceedings would be made if the factors set out in Section 6.1(a)-(d) above are satisfied.
15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the 3 rd Party 289 190 Consolidation may be ordered where the parties could have been joined in a single action pursuant to Order 15 Rule 4. 116 It should be noted that: “If an order for consolidation had been made, only one set of solicitors would represent the lead plaintiff and the determination of the court would bind all parties. The other plaintiffs would have to pay the costs of their solicitors with no recourse against or indemnity from the defendants.” (per Lai Kew Chai J, Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & Anor and other actions (3) 117 at paragraph 4) 191 In Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong, supra, it was held that it was generally impossible to consolidate actions where the plaintiffs in the actions had been and continued to be represented by different solicitors who had, in each case, completed their research, getting-up and, had been in the process of discovery of documents and other information “in relation to matters which could extend back a quarter of a century” 118 This was because it would not be possible to obtain the agreement of all the parties regarding the conduct of the action, and it would be “unjust and too overbearing” 119 to compel all the parties to agree to one set of solicitors, to terminate their retainers of their solicitors, and pay their solicitor and client costs without the prospect of any recourse from the defendants should the plaintiffs succeed in their claims. 192 The court in Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & Anor and other actions (3), supra, was of the view that where it was not possible for multiple actions to be consolidated, the next best alternative was to order that they be tried at the same time. 193 There seems to be little practical difference between consolidation and ordering actions to be tried at the same time, aside from the issues of separate legal representation and costs. The court observed that “In a trial of all the actions at the same time, the attendances of witnesses, counsel and of the parties need not be repeated. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in most cases of trials of multiple actions at the same time had in practice sensibly agreed that 116 See Singapore Court Practice 2003, Jeffrey Pinsler, at p 70, para 4/1/1 117 [1997] 3 SLR 178 118 per Lai Kew Chai J, Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & Anor and other actions (3), supra, at para 4. 119 Ibid, at para 11.
Page 1 and 2:
15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: 15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
Page 69: 15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
Page 87: 15 SAcLJ Matrimonial Assets and the
show all

View Article - Singapore Academy of Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?