Lioncity Construction Company Pte Ltd v JFC Builders Pte Ltd

• Judgment Date: 12 March 2015
• Date: 12 March 2015
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 3371 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 203 of 2014)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Lioncity Construction Co Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

JFC Builders Pte Ltd

Defendant

[2015] SGHC 62

See Kee Oon JC

District Court Suit No 3371 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal (State Courts) No 203 of 2014)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Extension of time—Extension of time to file notice of appeal—Party seeking to appeal out of time against decision of district judge in chambers—Party applying to extend time only after expiry of time limited for filing notice of appeal—Party making application for extension of time before district judge in chambers and not High Court judge in chambers—Whether district judge having power to grant extension of time to file notice of appeal against district judge's decision where application for extension of time was made after expiry of time limited for filing notice of appeal—Order 55 C r 1 (4) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

This was an appeal on a point of civil procedure. The central question in the appeal was as follows: If a party wished to appeal to a High Court judge in chambers against the decision of a district judge in chambers but the 14-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal, as prescribed by O 55 C r 1 (4) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), had expired, and only after the expiry of the 14 days did this party apply for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, should the application to extend time be heard by (a) the same court that made the decision which was sought to be appealed, ie,the district judge in chambers, or (b) the court with the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, ie, the High Court judge in chambers?

The appeal arose out of an underlying suit in the State Courts between a main contractor (the respondent, JFC Builders Pte Ltd) and a subcontractor (the appellant, Lioncity Construction Company Pte Ltd). In that suit, the subcontractor put forward a claim for outstanding payments against the main contractor. The subcontractor then obtained summary judgment against the main contractor in respect of part of its claim. Months later, the main contractor applied for an extension of time to appeal against the order for summary judgment. This application was heard by a district judge in chambers and the extension of time was granted.

The subcontractor was dissatisfied with the district judge's decision to grant the main contractor an extension of time to appeal. Pursuant to O 55 C r 1 (4) of the Rules of Court, it could have appealed against this decision to a High Court judge in chambers within 14 days of the decision. The subcontractor failed to file the notice of appeal within the prescribed 14 days. Accordingly, it had to seek an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.

The subcontractor was of the view that its application to extend time should be heard by the same court that had made the decision against which it wished to appeal, and on that basis the case was fixed before a district judge in chambers. However, the district judge held that she did not have the power under O 55 C r 1 (4) of the Rules of Court to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal where the application to extend time was made after the expiry of the 14 days limited for filing the notice of appeal. For this reason she dismissed the subcontractor's application. Dissatisfied with this, the subcontractor took out the instant appeal.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Although there did exist a precedent, MCST Plan No 2911 v Tham Keng Mun[2011] 1 SLR 1263, in which the High Court directed that the then Subordinate Courts should hear an application for extension of time to serve a notice of appeal against the decision of a district judge in chambers after expiry of the time limited for service, this precedent was not a helpful one because of its own unique circumstances, and because no submissions had been put forward in that case on the preliminary issue of whether a district judge in chambers even had the jurisdiction under O 55 C r 1 (4) of the Rules of Court to grant such an extension of time: at [14] , [19] and [20] .

(2) Leaving aside the type of appeal in this case, ie, an appeal to a High Court judge in chambers from a decision of a district judge in chambers as governed by O 55 C r 1 (4), in other types of appeals provided for by the Rules of Court - namely, (a) appeals to a district judge in chambers from decisions of a State Courts registrar in chambers as governed by O 55 B r 1 (4), (b) appeals to the High Court from the State Courts as governed by O 55 D r 14, and (c) appeals to the Court of Appeal as governed by O 57 r 17 - the uniform position was that an application for extension of time to appeal made after the expiry of the time limited to appeal should be heard by the court with the jurisdiction to hear the appeal, that is, (a) a district judge in chambers, (b) the High Court and (c) the Court of Appeal: at [29] to [32] .

(3) Where the application to extend time to appeal against the decision of a district judge in chambers was made before the expiry of the 14-day time limit for appealing, a district judge in chambers would have the power to grant an extension of time. But this did not necessarily mean that the district judge in chambers would also have such power if the application to extend time were made after the expiry of the 14-day time limit for appealing: at [33] and [34] .

(4) Given that both O 55 C r 1 (4) and O 55 D r 14 dealt with appeals to the High Court from the State Courts, it made sense to treat them on the same footing, notwithstanding the differences in the wording of the provisions. More broadly, it would be beneficial and neater to adopt a consistent approach towards all applications for extension of time to appeal. Just as it was the court with jurisdiction to hear the appeal that also heard an application for extension of time to appeal where the application was made after expiry of the time limited for appealing in the other types of appeals mentioned above at holding (2), so it should be the High Court judge in chambers who hears an application for extension of time to appeal against decisions of a district judge in chambers where such application was made after the expiry of the time limited for appealing: at [39] and [41] .

[Observation: There was an argument that, upon the expiry of the time limited for appealing against the decision of a district judge in chambers under O 55 C r 1 (4), the district judge was functus officio and hence had no jurisdiction to grant an extension of time to appeal. No view was offered on this argument because the same conclusion could be reached on other grounds as summarised in the holdings above: at [16] , [17] and [23] .]

AD v AE [2004] 2 SLR (R) 505; [2004] 2 SLR 505 (refd)

Banque Cantonale Vaudoise v RBG Resources plc [2004] 4 SLR (R) 856; [2004] 4 SLR 856 (refd)

Burke v Rooney (1879) 4 CPD 226 (refd)

Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson Judith Rosemary [1991] 1 SLR (R) 348; [1991] SLR 578 (refd)

MCST Plan No 2911 v Tham Keng Mun [2011] 1 SLR 1263 (distd)

Tjo Kwe In v Chia Song Kwan [2002] 2 SLR (R) 560; [2002] 4 SLR 406 (refd)

Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2005] SGCA 3 (refd)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 55 C r 1 (4) (consd) ;O 1 r 4 (2) , O 3 r 4, O 3 r 4 (1) , O 3 r 4 (2) , O 55 B r 1 (4) , O 55 C, O 55 D r 14, O 57 r 17

Thea Sonya Raman (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) for the appellant

Li Jiaxin (Michael Por Law Corporation) for the respondent.

See Kee Oon JC

1 This registrar's appeal turned on a procedural point: whether an application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal to the High Court after the expiry of the 14 days for appeal as stipulated in O 55 C r 1 (4) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (‘the ROC’) must be made before the High Court or whether the application can be made before a district judge (‘DJ’) in chambers. Order 55 B r 1 (4) of the ROC, which deals with appeals from a decision of a deputy registrar to a DJ in chambers, is worded in similar terms to O 55 C r 1 (4).

2 In the present case, the application for extension of time was brought before a DJ in chambers. It was heard on 5 August 2014 and dismissed by the DJ on 5 September 2014 on the basis that a DJ does not have power to hear such an application...