Grab Rentals Pte Ltd v Khoo Long Hui

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Gerome Goh Teng Jun
• Judgment Date: 26 June 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGMC 46
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate Court Originating Claim No 1715 of 2022 (Summons No 1333 of 2023)
• Hearing Date: 28 April 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGMC 46
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Koh Jia Min Desiree (Lee Shergill LLP)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Originating processes,Principles,What constitutes a special case to justify a third renewal of an originating claim
• Published date: 02 August 2023

Deputy Registrar Gerome Goh Teng Jun:

The Rules of Court 2021 substantially modified the regime pertaining to the renewal of originating processes. Under the Rules of Court 2014, the validity of an originating process (a writ or originating summons) is six months beginning with the date of issue or twelve months beginning with the date of issue in cases where leave to serve the originating process out of jurisdiction is required. The court may extend the validity of an originating process for such period by a maximum of twelve months at any one time for a potentially unlimited number of times (see O 6 r 4 and O 7 r 5 of the Rules of Court 2014; Singapore Rules of Court – A Practice Guide (2023 Edition) (Chua Lee Ming gen ed) (Academy Publishing, 2023) (“Singapore Rules of Court – A Practice Guide”) at para 06.007). The threshold to be met for a renewal of an originating process is one of good reason (Jason Textile Industries Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd [1988] 2 SLR(R) 491 at [32] and Lim Hong Kan and others v Mohd Sainudin bin Ahmad [1992] 1 SLR(R) 108 at [14]).

Under the Rules of Court 2021, the validity of an originating process (an originating claim or originating application) has been shortened to three months beginning from the date of its issue (see O 6 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court 2021). Notably, this applies regardless of whether leave to serve the originating process out of jurisdiction is required. Further, the court may only extend the validity of an originating process twice and by not more than three months each time except in a special case (O 6 r 3(4) of the Rules of Court 2021). Generally, an originating process would be valid for service for a maximum of nine months.

MC/SUM 1333/2023 (“SUM 1333”) is the application of the Claimant, Grab Rentals Pte Ltd, without notice for a third renewal of the originating claim, MC/OC 1715/2022. Having considered the supporting affidavit filed and the oral submissions made by the Claimant at the hearing on 28 April 2023, I dismissed the Claimant's application in SUM 1333. Given that there is little guidance on the identification of a “special case” in O 6 r 3(4) of the Rules of Court 2021, this is my grounds of decision setting out my views on the considerations applicable to the court’s assessment of whether the case before it is a special one.

Background

The originating claim was issued by the Claimant on 2 August 2022 in respect of its claim against the Defendant, Khoo Long Hui, for property damage arising out of a road traffic accident which occurred on 27 May 2019. As neither the Defendant nor the Defendant’s insurer appointed solicitors to accept service of the originating claim, the Claimant made an application on 9 September 2022 for permission to serve the originating claim on the Defendant in Malaysia. The court granted the application on 11 September 2022.

On 28 October 2022, the Claimant made its first application for renewal of the originating claim. The application was granted on 28 October 2022 and the originating claim was renewed for a period of three months from 2 November 2022. At this point, the Claimant had instructed a Malaysian firm, M/s Yusof Rahmat & Co (“Yusof Rahmat”) to assist in effecting service by way of Advice of Receipt (“AR”) registered post on the Defendant at his place of residence in Malaysia. Yusof Rahmat had acknowledged receipt of the instructions but had not responded on whether service had been effected.

Thereafter, the Claimant was informed by Yusof Rahmat on 25 November 2022 that service by way of AR registered post had been unsuccessful. The Claimant gave instructions for Yusof Rahmat to arrange for a process server to travel to the Defendant’s place of residence to attempt service. On 19 January 2023, the Claimant was informed by Yusof Rahmat that the process server had attempted to serve the documents on the Defendant at his residential address, but no such person was available at the residential address.

On 25 January 2023, the Claimant made its second application for renewal of the originating claim. The application was granted on 25 January 2023 and the originating claim was renewed for a period of three months from 2 February 2023.

Following this, the Claimant informed its solicitors that they required some time to consider their next course of action, including whether to take out an application for substituted service, because there was a reasonable prospect that the costs incurred would not be recovered. The Claimant also entered into negotiations with the Defendant’s insurers. On 16 February 2023, the Defendant’s insurers made an offer which was rejected by the Claimant. A counter proposal was made by the Claimant, but the Defendant’s insurers had not responded.

On 15 March 2023, the Claimant wrote to Yusof Rahmat to enquire on the type of searches that they were able to do to ascertain whether the Defendant was still residing at the residential address reflected in the RIMV search conducted in 2020. Yusof Rahmat responded that a JPN search was possible. The Claimant gave instructions to Yusof Rahmat to conduct the JPN search. Yusof Rahmat informed that the JPN search may take between 2 to 4 weeks. On 11 April 2023, Yusof Rahmat responded that the JPN search only revealed the Defendant’s residential address as at 15 June 2015. Thus, the residential address reflected in the RIMV search was more recent.

On 12 April 2023, the Claimant filed a request for permission to file the application seeking a third renewal of the originating claim. On 21 April 2023, the request was allowed. On 26 April 2023, the Claimant filed the present application for a third renewal of the originating claim.

The Claimant’s submissions

The Claimant submitted that it would be in the interests of justice to grant the application for the following reasons: First, there would be substantial prejudice caused to the Claimant if the application was dismissed. The Claimant took all reasonable steps to serve the originating claim on the Defendant. Its unsuccessful attempts were not caused by its fault but from the “inevitable delay in service in Malaysia” that would not be in the Claimant’s control and the refusal of the Defendant’s insurer to appoint solicitors to accept service which would have obviated the need for the Claimant to apply for an order to effect substituted service. If SUM 1113 was dismissed, the Claimant will be prejudiced in having to unnecessarily incur additional costs in order to file another originating claim, file an application to serve the Defendant out of jurisdiction, attempt service and file an application to effect substituted service. Secondly, the court’s time and resources would be saved because this would obviate the need for the court to adjudicate over the claimant’s application to serve out of jurisdiction when an order for the same had been granted in this suit (see [4] above). Thirdly, as regards the requirement of a special case, dismissing the application would go against the Ideals set out in O 3 of the Rules of Court 2021. The Claimant also emphasised the difficulties on effecting service in Malaysia and the delays that arose as a result of correspondence with Yusof Rahmat.

The law

Under O 6 r 3(4) of the Rules of Court 2021, the court may extend the validity of an originating claim only twice except in a special case. As noted at [2] above, an originating process would generally only be valid for service for a maximum of nine months. It would only be in a special case where the court may grant a third or further renewal of an originating process or a period of renewal that is more than three months.

The modified regime encourages claimants to expeditiously effect service by shortening the validity period of an originating process (even for a case of service out of jurisdiction) and provides for greater supervision by the court over cases which are stagnant because the defendant has not been served. This...