Masilaman Vellasamy v Attorney General and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 29 July 1987
• Date: 29 July 1987
• Docket Number: Suit No 6054 of 1986
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Masilaman Vellasamy

Plaintiff

and

Attorney-General and another

Defendant

[1987] SGHC 32

Chan Sek Keong JC

Suit No 6054 of 1986

High Court

Civil Procedure–Striking out–Limitation–Whether estate claim time barred–Claim by estate for damages for negligence resulting in death of deceased–Section 6 (4) Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1985 Rev Ed)–Sections 7 (1) and 11 (5) Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1985 Rev Ed)

On application of the first defendant, the assistant registrar struck out the writ of summons on the ground that the action was time barred. The plaintiff appealed and submitted that his claim was an estate claim subject to the normal limitation period of six years under s 6 (1) (a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1985 Rev Ed) read with s 7 (1) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) and not, unlike a dependency claim, subject to the limitation period of three years by virtue of s 11 (5) of the Act. The first defendant countered that the estate claim was barred under s 6 (4) of the Limitation Act, which had the effect of cutting down the limitation period for actions arising out of negligence, nuisance or breach of duty to three years.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The plaintiff's claim was in effect a claim for damages for personal injuries which, but for s 7 (1) of the Act, would not have survived at common law. Section 7 (1) merely preserved the cause of action posthumously and no more. Unlike s 11 (5) of the Act, in relation to dependency claims, it did not extend or purport to extend, upon the death of the injured person, the limitation period of three years prescribed by s 6 (4) of the Limitation Act: at [10].

(2) As a matter of construction, s 6 (4) of the Limitation Act applied to all actions for damages for negligence or breach of duty where the damages claimed include damages in respect of personal injuries. The present claim was a claim for damages for negligence: at [11].

Baker v Bolton (1808) 1 Camp 493; 170 ER 1033 (refd)

Chan Chung Hoong v Cheow Vooi Peng [1955] MLJ 135 (refd)

James Patrick & Co Proprietary Ltd v Dacie Ethel Sharpe [1955] AC 1 (refd)

Lloyds Bank Ltd v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1951] 1 TLR 803 (refd)

Rose v Ford [1937] AC 826 (refd)

Civil Law Act (Cap 43,1985 Rev Ed)ss 7 (1), 11 (5) (consd);s 11 (1)

Limitation Act (Cap 163,1985 Rev Ed)s 6 (4) (consd);s 6 (1) (a)

Civil Law Enactment 1937 (No 3 of 1937) (FMS)s 4

Executors (Powers) and Fatal Accidents Enactment (No 19 of...