Official Receiver, Liquidator of Jason Textile Industries Pte Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 23 November 1988
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 92 of 1986
• Date: 23 November 1988

Jason Textile Industries Pte Ltd (in liquidation)

Plaintiff

and

QBE Insurance (International) Ltd

Defendant

[1988] SGCA 14

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

A P Rajah J

and

Chan Sek Keong J

Civil Appeal No 92 of 1986

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure–Rules of court–Non-compliance–Whether service of lapsed writ of summons was irregularity that could be cured under O 2 r 1 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970–Order 2 r 1 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970–Civil Procedure–Writ of summons–Whether court had power to extend validity of writ of summons for more than 12 months at a time–Order 6 r 7 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

The plaintiff issued the writ of summons in this action on 2 December 1980. The claim, under certain policies of insurance issued by the defendant, was for alleged loss and damage arising from a fire. The validity of the writ for service expired on 1 December 1981 and was not served on the defendant. Four and a half years after the writ was issued the plaintiff applied successfully to extend the validity of the writ for service for five successive 12-month periods. After being served with the writ, the defendant applied successfully to set aside the writ and all subsequent proceedings. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The court's power under O 6 r 7 of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (“the Rules of Court”) was limited to extending the validity of the writ once for a maximum of 12 months. There was no power to grant two or more successive renewals to bring the writ up to date: at [11] and [12].

(2) Non-renewal of the writ was an irregularity that could be cured under O 2 r 1 of the Rules of Court. However, the power in O 2 r 1 to cure irregularities was subject to the same principles that govern an ordinary application made under O 6 r 7: at [20] and [21].

(3) Had an application under O 6 r 7 been made to the Registrar, he would not have been able to renew the writ in the manner asked for. First, there was no power to renew the writ for more than 12 months. Second, the plaintiffs had not shown any good reason why the validity of the writ ought to be extended. The plaintiffs had made a conscious decision not to serve the writ: at [25] and [31].

[Observation: Writs were for serving, and good reason was required before they would be renewed. The Court of Appeal agreed with the disapproval in Waddon v Whitecroft Scovell Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 309 of granting extensions of writs more or less as a matter of course even in cases involving questions of limitation of action: at [32].]

Bernstein v Jackson [1982] 1 WLR 1082; [1982] 2 All ER 806 (refd)

Chappell v Cooper; Player v Bruguiere [1980] 1 WLR 958; [1980] 2 All ER 463 (folld)

Devon & Cornwall Housing Association v Acland Thorman & Miller-Williams (1986) 6 Con LR 41 (refd)

Heaven v Road & Rail Wagons Ltd [1965] 2 QB 355 (folld)

Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Barbrak Ltd [1987] AC 597 (folld)

Leal v Dunlop Bio-Processes International Ltd [1984] 1 WLR 874; [1984] 2 All ER 207 (folld)

Waddon v Whitecroft Scovell Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 309 (folld)

Rules of the Supreme Court1970, TheO 2r 1, O 6r 7 (consd)

Liu Yuen Ming (Lim Ganesh & Liu) for the plaintiff/appellant

Harry Elias and Pauline Tan (Drew & Napier) for the defendant/respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the judgment of the court):

1 On 2 December 1980 the plaintiffs, a company in liquidation, issued the writ of summons in this action, claiming under certain policies of insurance issued by the defendants, for alleged loss and damage arising from a fire which occurred on 4 December 1979. The writ of summons contained an endorsement of the plaintiffs' claims.

2 On 20 January 1981, more than a year after the fire had occurred, the plaintiffs filed their statement of claim. The validity of the writ for service expired on 1 December 1981. Neither the writ nor the statement of claim was served on the defendants.

3 On 7 August 1985, some four and a half years after the writ was issued, the plaintiffs filed an ex parteapplication to court to renew the validity of the writ for service for five successive 12-month periods from:

1. (a) 1 December 1981 to 2 December 1982;

2. (b) 1 December 1982 to 2 December 1983;

3. (c) 1 December 1983 to 2 December 1984;

4. (d) 1 December 1984 to 2 December 1985; and

5. (e) 1 December 1985 to 2 December 1986.

4 On 18 November 1985, the plaintiffs were granted an order in terms of their ex parte applications. At this juncture, we would just note that, the writ having expired on 1 December 1981, each successive 12-month extension ought to begin on 2 December and end on 1 December the following year, instead of beginning on the first and ending on the second.

5 The writ was served on 12 December 1985 and on 9 January 1986 the defendants applied to set aside the writ and all subsequent proceedings. On 22 May 1986 the learned Deputy Registrar made an order in terms of the defendants' application.

6 The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court which...