Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 31 January 2008
• Date: 31 January 2008
• Docket Number: Suit No 995 of 2004
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

Lai Swee Lin Linda

Plaintiff

and

Attorney-General

Defendant

[2008] SGHC 17

Tay Yong Kwang J

Suit No 995 of 2004

High Court

Civil Procedure–Discontinuance–Whether letters relating to request for further arguments considered a step or proceeding–Order 21 r 2 (6) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

On 1 March 2007, an assistant registrar ruled that the plaintiff's action be deemed discontinued as no step in the proceedings had been taken between August 2005 and August 2006. He ordered the amended statement of claim to be expunged from the court records and directed the plaintiff to file an application to reinstate the action, failing which no further document was to be accepted by the registry for filing. The plaintiff appealed against the assistant registrar's order, arguing that the issue was whether any step had been taken between 8 February 2006 and 8 February 2007 when the amended statement of claim was filed. She submitted that after the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's application on 24 October 2005, she wrote a letter dated 31 October 2005 to request further arguments, and was subsequently informed by the registry on 7 November 2005 that the Court of Appeal did not wish to hear further arguments. On 13 February 2006, she filed an affidavit in support of her application to extend time for filing her appeal papers in Civil Appeal No 87 of 2005.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) A step or proceeding under O 21 r 2 (6) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) included a letter to a judge requesting further arguments only in cases where such a process was required by law. The last relevant step or proceeding in the present action was on 24 October 2005 when the Court of Appeal heard and allowed the defendant's application to strike out the notice of appeal in so far as it related to the present action. The plaintiff's letter of 31 October 2005 was not a “step or proceeding” within the meaning of O 21 r 2 (6) because no procedure for further arguments before the Court of Appeal was mandated by law. Even if the registry's reply of 7 November 2005 was considered a step or proceeding, more than a year had elapsed by the time the amended statement of claim was filed on 8 February 2007. All the matters in the interim related to the separate bankruptcy proceedings and not the present action: at [6] and [8].

(2) The plaintiff's letter of 24 March 2006 to the registry, requesting a copy of Tan Lee Meng J's grounds of decision and notes of evidence with respect to the striking-out appeal in the present action, was not a step or proceeding either. The assistant registrar was correct in finding that the present action was deemed discontinued before the amended statement of claim was filed, but this discontinuance took effect one year after 24 October 2005: at [9] and [10].

(3) The present matter concerned only the issue of whether the present action was deemed discontinued, and not whether the action should be reinstated under O 21 r 2 (8). The plaintiff would thus have to make an application for reinstatement separately, as directed by the assistant registrar: at [11].

AG v Tan Wee Beng [2002] SGHC 261 (folld)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2005] SGHC 182 (refd)

Moguntia-Est Epices SA v Sea-Hawk Freight Pte Ltd [2003] 4 SLR (R) 429; [2003] 4 SLR 429 (refd)

Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda [2001] SGCA 10 (refd)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)O 21r 2 (6) (consd);O 18r 19, O 21rr 2 (6A), 2 (6B), 2 (8),O 57r 9 (4)

The plaintiff/appellant in person

Leong Kwang Ian (Attorney-General's Chambers) for defendant/respondent.

Tay Yong Kwang J

The application

1 The plaintiff acts in person in these proceedings. She is a legally-trained person. In Registrar's Appeal No 61 of 2007, she appealed against the decision of Assistant Registrar Kenneth Yap who had ordered her amended statement of claim in this action to be expunged from the court records because the action was deemed discontinued under O 21 r 2 (6) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed). The assistant registrar also directed her to...