Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Peck
• Judgment Date: 02 October 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGMC 31
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No. 357 of 2015, MC/RA No. 50 of 2015
• Year: 2015
• Published date: 10 December 2015
• Hearing Date: 16 September 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Gong Chin Nam (M/s Hin Rai Augustine & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Angeline Rajoo (M/s Tan Kok Quan Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure- Striking out
• Citation: [2015] SGMC 31

District Judge Wong Peck: Introduction

The Plaintiff, in this case, filed his suit on 7 January 2015 against the Defendant for damages in respect of his personal injuries arising out of a motor accident that occurred on 7 January 2012. The Defendant applied to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim endorsed on the Writ of Summons in that it is frivolous or vexatious and/or otherwise abuse of the process of Court as it was time-barred under section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act (Cap. 163, 1996 Rev Ed). The Deputy Registrar (“DR”) held that the action was indeed time-barred and accordingly, struck out the action. The Plaintiff appealed against the DR’s decision. After hearing the parties, I dismissed the appeal. These are the written grounds of my decision.

Issue

The focus of the appeal was on the issue of whether the action was time-barred under section 24A(2) of the Limitation Act. The pertinent question was whether for purpose of computing the limitation period under section 24A(2), does the 3 year period specified in that section include the date of the accident. Not surprisingly, the position taken by the Plaintiff is that it excludes the date of the accident whereas the Defendant took the opposite position. I agreed with the Defendant that the 3 year period includes the date of the accident which would mean that the last date for filing the action would have been 6 January 2015. Accordingly, the action was therefore time-barred having been filed on 7 January 2015 and should be struck out.

The Plaintiff’s case

At the hearing before me, the Plaintiff’s counsel highlighted that section 24A(2) provides that an action for damages in respect of personal injuries to the Plaintiff shall not be brought 3 years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. Counsel also drew the Court’s attention to section 6 of the Limitation Act which appears to be similarly worded. Section 6 relates to the limitation period for contract and tort and certain other actions. Counsel then further contended that section 2 of the English Limitation Act is similarly worded using the phrase “expiration of three years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.” This provision of the English Limitation Act relates to actions founded on contract or on tort.

He went on to refer to authorities that largely interpret section 6 of the Singapore Limitation Act and section 2 of the English Limitation Act. These authorities include English as well as Singapore ones such as the Singapore Civil Procedure 2015 (also known as the White book). Two local cases were also referred to. One of which is the High Court decision of Sun Fook Kong Construction Ltd (formerly known as Sung Foo Kee, Ltd) v Housing Development Board [2004] SGHC 69 (“Sun Fook Kong”) which interpreted section 6 of the Limitation Act. The other is a 2009 District Court decision of Vijaykumar A/L Subramaniam v Peng Jun Qing & Anor [2009] SGDC 158 (“Vijaykumar”) which relate to a personal injury claim arising from a traffic accident. Counsel concluded that these authorities support his proposition that the day on which the action arose is excluded and the day on which the action is commenced is included. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s action is not time-barred.

The Defendant’s case

In response to the arguments presented by the Plaintiff’s counsel, the Defendant’s counsel tendered a series of Singapore High Court decisions and a Court of Appeal decision to support the contention that the last day for filing of the Writ was 6 January 2015 so when the Plaintiff filed his Writ...