Selco (Singapore) Ltd v Delporte

• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 28 May 1969
• Neutral Citation: [1969] SGFC 6
• Citation: [1969] SGFC 6
• Defendant Counsel: AP Godwin (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: KS Chung (Chung & Co)
• Date: 28 May 1969
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y2 of 1969
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Extension of time,Whether court had jurisdiction to extend time for plaintiff to provide security for costs,Whether extension resulting in injustice to defendants,Whether sufficient evidence to grant extension,Orders LI r 2(2), LXII r 5(2) Rules of the Supreme Court 1934

The plaintiff resides in Belgium. By an order of court dated 22 November 1968 (made by the learned Chief Justice), the plaintiff was required to give security for the defendants` costs in the sum of $1,000 to be paid into court within three weeks. On 6 December 1968 the matter was brought before the learned Chief Justice at the request of the solicitors for the plaintiff who were seeking an order that the security for costs ordered be furnished by way of guarantee. The learned Chief Justice was of the view that the manner in which it was sought to have the matter heard was misconceived as an application should have been made by summons. On 13 December 1968 the solicitors for the plaintiff took out a summons seeking an order that the security for costs ordered be furnished by way of guarantee. Before the summons was heard the defendants took out a summons on 27 December 1968 seeking an order that the action of the plaintiff be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to O LXII r 5 (2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1934. The plaintiff`s summons was heard by the learned Chief Justice on 7 January 1969. The application of the plaintiff was refused but the plaintiff was granted one week within which to comply with the order of 22 November 1968. The summons of the defendants was adjourned. It is against the order of 7 January 1969 granting the plaintiff a week to comply with the order of 22 November 1968 that the defendants now appeal.

It is submitted on behalf of the defendants that the learned Chief Justice was wrong in granting the plaintiff an extension of one week when the plaintiff did not ask for it. We are unable to accept this submission. By O LI r 2 (2) the learned Chief Justice upon hearing the application of the plaintiff `may make any order, and give any directions relative to, or consequential on, the matter of such application as are just`. It cannot be argued that the order granting the plaintiff a week to comply with the order of 22 November 1968 was not `consequential on the matter of such application`. Furthermore, it is our view that where time is fixed by the court or a judge for doing some act, the court has inherent jurisdiction to extend the time.

It is further submitted that the learned Chief Justice was wrong in granting the extension as there was no ground advanced by the plaintiff for the extension and that there was no evidence to justify the extension. With this submission we also cannot agree. When the learned...