Lim Yee Ming v Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Belinda Ang Saw Ean J
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 222
• Docket Number: Suit No 1368 of 2001 (Registrar's
• Date: 26 September 2003
• Published date: 16 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Matthew Saw (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 222
• Defendant Counsel: Brian Tan (Madhavan Partnership)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Judgments and orders,Civil Procedure,Whether special circumstances existing to justify grant of stay,Application for stay of execution pending appeal against judgment

1 This is the Plaintiff’s appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar granting a stay of execution pending the 1^st 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 1^st Defendant, Ubin Lagoon Resort Pte Ltd, is a Singapore company operating Ubin Adventure Centre at Pulau Ubin. The 1^st Defendant conducts adventure and recreational activities and had contracted with the 2^nd Defendant, a Singapore company, to set up the Ubin Adventure Centre, supply relevant equipment and train the 1^st Defendant’s personnel. The 2^nd Defendant in turn contracted with the 3^rd Defendant, an Australian company, to supply equipment to Ubin Adventure Centre and to train the 1^st 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 1^st Defendant filed Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal on liability. The 2^nd and 3^rd 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: Singapore Airlines Ltd & Malaysian Airlines System Berhad v Fujitsu Microelectronics (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd [2001] 1 SLR 532.

7 It was clear from the Plaintiff’s own evidence that she would probably not be in a position financially to return the monies if the Court of Appeal reverses the decision against the 1^st Defendant. In this case the Plaintiff’s financial straits was admitted. The monies are required to meet her medical and other...