This is an appeal against an order of the assistant registrar made on the hearing for further directions as follows:

(1) action to be stayed pending determination of the plaintiff's capacity in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap 178, 1985 Ed);

(2) if the plaintiff is found to be of sound mind on 21 March 1989 this action to continue;

(3) if the plaintiff is found to be of unsound mind on 21 March 1989 this action to be dismissed with costs to be taxed up to the summons for directions stage and awarded to defendant;

(4) if plaintiff's state of mind on 21 March 1989 cannot be determined by inquiry and

(a) he is found to be of sound mind at the conclusion of the inquiry, this action to continue;

(b) he is found to be of unsound mind at the conclusion of inquiry, this action to continue but with the appropriate committee to prosecute the plaintiff's action by amendment under O 20 r 5;

(5) the costs of the day's hearing be awarded to the defendant fixed at $350.

The plaintiff had suffered severe injuries from a collision between his motor cycle and the pick-up van driven by the defendant. The plaintiff had, inter alia, a severe head injury (with intercranial haemorrhage) and was in a coma on being admitted to the Tan Tock Seng Hospital on the day of the accident. He was treated for his injuries and was discharged from hospital on 4 June 1988.

On 19 January 1989, the senior registrar of the Department of Neurosurgery of Tan Tock Seng Hospital gave a medical report on the condition of the plaintiff in which he stated, inter alia, that 'He [the plaintiff] was last seen here on 13 June 1988. He was bedridden. He could open his eyes, could not talk, could not answer questions and bedridden'.

On 21 March 1989, the present action was commenced. The statement of claim filed on 20 April 1989 gave full particulars of the injuries as certified in the medical report. On 16 May 1989, the defendant filed his defence. Directions for trial were given on 22 August 1989 following which the medical report was disclosed to the defendant. A month later, the defendant's solicitor applied for further directions for production of information pertaining to the alcoholic condition of the plaintiff on admission to hospital. The request to set down the action for trial was filed on 25 September 1989. On being told that the plaintiff was unable to give consent to the disclosure of his medical condition at the time of admission on the ground that the plaintiff was in a coma and after receipt of a copy of the medical report dated 19 January 1989, the defendant's solicitor amended and then reamended his application for further directions for, inter alia, the dismissal of the action on the basis of the medical report on the ground of non-compliance with O 76 r 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970.

It should be noted that the defendants did not seek a stay of proceedings on the ground that the plaintiff had become a disabled person since the commencement of the action. The defendant sought to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiff was in a coma or otherwise disabled on the date of the commencement of this action. The assistant registrar ordered a stay of proceedings on the terms as set out above.

The main ground of appeal is that the assistant registrar has no jurisdiction to order an inquiry under the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap 178, 1985 Ed) ('the Act'). It is not disputed that the assistant registrar has no such jurisdiction and that only a judge may order an inquiry under s 3 thereof. The only question is whether the orders made by him amounted to the exercise of such jurisdiction. Although the assistant registrar did not in form order an inquiry but a stay of proceedings pending an inquiry, the effect of the stay is that the relatives of the plaintiff must apply for an inquiry before the plaintiff may proceed further with his action. I think the assistant r