Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA |
Judgment Date | 02 February 2023 |
Neutral Citation | [2023] SGHC(A) 5 |
Court | High Court Appellate Division (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Originating Application No 15 of 2022 |
Hearing Date | 02 February 2023 |
Citation | [2023] SGHC(A) 5 |
Year | 2023 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Lim Bee Li and Wong Zhen Yang (Chevalier Law LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Loh Yik Ming Michael (Clifford Law LLP) |
Published date | 07 February 2023 |
The present Originating Application (“OA”) is an application by the applicant, Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd (“D”), for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time against the decision of the General Division of the High Court (the “High Court”) made on 22 August 2022. In
The date of the decision of the Judge was 22 August 2022 (see [1] above). Pursuant to O 19 r 25(1)(
In determining the present question of whether to grant an applicant permission to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time, the court’s power to grant permission under O 19 r 25 of the ROC 2021 is discretionary; the exercise of discretion is governed by the overriding objective of finality in litigation and by the general principles underlying the appeal regime. The well-established principles pertaining to and underlying the appeal regime are set out in
D’s case focuses on the first and second factors. It contends that its delay of one day is the clearest example of a
On the other hand, P submits that the failure of D’s solicitors to check whether the ROC 2021 applied cannot be an excuse. P also contends that allowing D’s application for an extension of time to appeal would be extremely prejudicial to P as it would result in further deterioration of the assets in question (referred to in [1] above) and cause P to suffer more financial damage. Finally, P submits that there is no serious or reasonable question or issue to be brought on appeal.
Length of delay and reasons for the delay The date of the decision of the Judge was 22 August 2022. Applying O 19 r 25(1)(
As for the reasons for the delay, D’s reason for the delay was its solicitors’ mistake in assuming that the time for filing and service of a notice of appeal was one month after the date of the decision (as explained at [4] above). The time for bringing an appeal under O 19 r 25(1) of ROC 2021, however, is 28 days.
In
Ms Lim candidly explained in her affidavit that she “had wrongly
Ms Lim further explained her mistake in calculating the relevant prescribed deadline under the ROC 2021 (see [4] above). She explained that her confusion was due in part to the wording of O 3 r 3(3) of the ROC 2021 which stipulates that “[w]here an act is required to be done within a specified period after or from a specified date, the period begins immediately after that date”. Based on her own calculations, she believed the last day for filing to be 20 September 2022 instead of 19 September 2022. We note that this provision retains the position set out in O 3 r 2(2) of the former ROC 2014 which stipulated that “[w]here the act is required to be done within a specified period after or from a specified date, the period begins immediately after that date”. Under the ROC 2021, this means that if the date of the High Court’s judgment is 22 August 2022, the notice of appeal must be filed within 28 days after the date of the High Court’s judgment, which would be 19 September 2022. The ROC 2021 did not change the method of calculating time periods. The rules of civil procedure are sufficiently clear on the applicable time for the filing of a notice of appeal. In this regard, there is no ambiguity in how time is to be calculated under the ROC 2014 and the ROC 2021. We observe that as Ms Lim said that she
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another
...or explanation offered to mitigate or excuse the oversight (Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC(A) 5 at [8]). We are cognisant that A/C had attempted to file the PTA Application by the stated timeline, and when his subsequent attempts to re-file (ma......
-
Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd v Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd
...should be given, the court will exercise its discretion accordingly: Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd [2023] SGHC(A) 5 at [12]. In our judgment, we are not persuaded that the present application justifies the exercise of our discretion as such, and therefore......