Case Note: Understanding the Bounds of Consent Interlocutory Judgments: Crapper Ian Anthony v Salziman bin Abdullah [2024] SGCA 21

by Stuart Peter

Can you enter an interlocutory judgment by consent for a negligence claim whilst still reserving the right to contest the issue of causation at the assessment of damages stage of proceedings? The recent decision of Crapper Ian Anthony v Salmizan bin Abdullah touches on precisely this issue.

In this case (involving a claim for negligence resulting in personal injury from a motor vehicle accident, “PIMA”), parties agreed to enter into a consent interlocutory judgment at 90% in favour of the injured person but “leaving issues of damages and causation to be assessed”. This was done to save time and costs in needing to have a full trial on all issues pertaining to liability and quantum of damages.

The Registrar assigned to assess damages however expressed concerns on whether it was legally permissible for parties to enter an interlocutory judgment with express reservation regarding causation (since causation itself was an element to be proven in establishing liability for negligence). The matter was thus transferred to the High Court, where the Court held that this was not permissible. The Court of Appeal however overturned this decision on appeal and held that the approach adopted by the parties herein was in fact legally permissible.

Importantly, the Court of Appeal took the view that an interlocutory judgment simply referred to an intermediate judgment that determines a preliminary or subordinate point but does not finally decide the case (at [47]). Seen in this way, an interlocutory judgment could be entered by consent on issues that do not wholly establish liability; it was for parties to agree on what had been resolved with res judicata effect and what had not (at [48]).

In other words, it was not an all-or-nothing situation where the entire matter of liability had to be resolved by an interlocutory judgment entered into by consent, and there was no reason why parties could not consent to leave certain issues to be determined at the second stage in proceedings. For example, it was possible to have a consent interlocutory judgment entered in which the existence and breach of duty of care have been established, and a subsequent final judgment whereby causation of damage was not eventually made out, with the result that no damages were due to the claimant (at [48]).

In arriving at its decision, the Court of Appeal also highlighted the importance of ensuring accuracy, precision, and clarity in drafting a consent interlocutory judgment, noting that there was a distinction between an interlocutory judgment on issues and an interlocutory judgment on liability. Where it is the latter, then it would by definition mean that such an interlocutory judgment would have to establish liability fully, reserving only issues relating to the assessment of damages. Where it is the former, then it is important to expressly define the particular issues that the interlocutory judgment had resolved (at [51]).

Can bifurcation orders only be made to divide issues of liability and quantum?

Relating to the above pronouncements, the Court also clarified that there was no requirement that bifurcation of proceedings should only take the form of bifurcation between issues of liability and quantum and that the Court’s case management powers were wide enough for the court to order any form of bifurcation which was just and convenient in the effective and efficient disposal of the matter (at [57]).

What does this mean for future conduct of litigation?

The case of Ian Anthony thus illustrates the flexibility and creativity that can be exercised by disputing parties in the conduct of a case in order to minimize points of dispute and save parties’ time and costs. It makes clear that parties need not adopt an all-or-nothing approach in agreeing to dispense with certain material issues of fact and law by way of consent, and that such agreement can even be recorded in an interlocutory judgment for the purposes of determining those issues with finality. The case however also underscores the importance in clear and accurate wording in the drafting of a consent interlocutory judgment in order to be clear on what exactly has been dispensed with and thus what the remaining issues are which fall to be determined by the Court.