Lim Boon Neo v Arumugam and Another
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1990 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 33 of |
| Date | 22 January 1990 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1990] SGPC 1
Privy Council
Lord Keith of Kinkel
,
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
Lord Templeman
and
Lord Lowry
Privy Council Appeal No 33 of 1988
Anthony Cripps QC and R Karuppan Chettiar (Le Brasseur & Monier-Williams) for the appellant
Yusuff Jumabhoy and P Balagopal (Kingsford Stacey) for the respondents.
Benmax v Austin Motor Co [1955] AC 370; [1955] 1 All ER 326 (folld)
Thomas v Thomas [1947] AC 484 (folld)
Control of Rent Act (Cap 58, 1985 Rev Ed)
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1985 Rev Ed) s 9 (1)
Civil Procedure–Appeals–Trial judge's findings of fact reversed by appellate court–Whether appellate court entitled to interfere with trial judge's findings of fact
This was an action for vacant possession of a shophouse. The case turned on whether the owner of the shophouse, now deceased, had granted an oral tenancy of the shophouse to a firm. The defence rested almost entirely on certain account book entries of the firm purportedly showing that the deceased had been credited with rent for the shophouse over a period of several years. The plaintiff's witness, a clerk of the firm, gave evidence in the trial court that the entries were fictitious, and had been made for tax purposes. The plaintiff also produced a property tax return stating that the premises were owner-occupied and that no rent was paid in respect of them.
The trial judge made a finding of fact that the defence had not proved an oral tenancy of the shophouse. On appeal, the High Court disagreed with the trial judge's evaluation of the evidence. On further appeal, the Court of Appeal decided that the High Court was not entitled to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact in the circumstances, and restored the judgment of the trial judge. The defence appealed to the Privy Council.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
The only issue in this case was one of fact. This involved the credibility and reliability of witnesses. There were no sufficient grounds for overturning the decision of the trial judge on appeal, and the reasons given by the Court of Appeal for restoring it were convincing: at [10].
Judgment reserved.
Lord Keith of Kinkel(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This appeal is concerned with a shophouse at 20 Klang Road, Singapore. The issue is whether or not the now deceased Madam Perumal Ramayee, who became owner of the shophouse in 1962, granted an oral tenancy of it...
To continue reading
Request your trial