Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd and Others

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeBelinda Ang Saw Ean J
Judgment Date26 September 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 222
Citation[2003] SGHC 222
Subject MatterJudgments and orders,Civil Procedure,Whether special circumstances existing to justify grant of stay,Application for stay of execution pending appeal against judgment
Plaintiff CounselMatthew Saw (Lee & Lee)
Published date16 October 2003
Defendant CounselBrian Tan (Madhavan Partnership)
Docket NumberSuit No 1368 of 2001 (Registrar's
Date26 September 2003

1 This is the Plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar granting a stay of execution pending the 1st Defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal. I upheld the Assistant Registrar’s decision on 27 August 2003. I now give my reasons for dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal.

2 The 1st Defendant, Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd, is a Singapore company operating Ubin Adventure Centre at Pulau Ubin. The 1st Defendant conducts adventure and recreational activities and had contracted with the 2nd Defendant, a Singapore company, to set up the Ubin Adventure Centre, supply relevant equipment and train the 1st Defendant’s personnel. The 2nd Defendant in turn contracted with the 3rd Defendant, an Australian company, to supply equipment to Ubin Adventure Centre and to train the 1st Defendant’s personnel.

3 The Plaintiff was seriously injured at Ubin Adventure Centre. Whilst she was being lowered to the ground from the top of a 24m-high tower, she suddenly dropped from a height of approximately 8 to 10 meters. She fell heavily to the ground and is now paralysed from the waist down.

4 After a 4-day trial before Justice Lai Kew Chai, the Defendants were found jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff. The Defendants were ordered to pay the Plaintiff damages in the sum of $1.65 million. Damages for three other heads of claim were ordered to be assessed by the Registrar. On 21 July 2003, the 1st Defendant filed Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on liability. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants lodged no appeal.

5 A stay application of this nature involves the interplay of two principles. There is the principle that a successful litigant ought not to be deprived of the fruits of his victory. The other principle is that when a party is exercising his undoubted right of appeal, his appeal should not be rendered nugatory, if successful. A court would in the exercise of its discretion grant a stay of execution pending appeal where the special circumstances of the case so require. See Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam [1990] SLR 740.

6 An instance of a special circumstance justifying a stay of execution is where the judgment creditor may be unable to return the monies. There was in my view a real and genuine risk of that eventuality, which would render a successful appeal nugatory. It is to be remembered that the restoration of monies paid over under a judgment is founded on the principles of restitution and the return of such monies is with interest: ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and Another Appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 8 July 2004
    ...... a test suggested and partly validated by Naranjo and others in 1981, and estimated that the attribution of Andrea’s .... 175      In the third case, Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 134 , the judge ......
  • Mei Yue Lan Margaret v Raffles City (Pte) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 14 September 2005
    ....... (c)        In Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd [2003] SGHC 134 , the ... be at a significant disadvantage when competing with others for the same job. True, she may have to put in more hours ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT