The "Virginia Rhea"

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 02 October 1984
• Date: 02 October 1984
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 79 of 1982
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)

The “Virginia Rhea”

[1984] SGCA 27

T Kulasekaram J

,

Lai Kew Chai J

and

A Wahab Ghows J

Civil Appeal No 79 of 1982

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure–Pleadings–Amendment–Appellants claiming as owners or consignees of goods on board vessel–Appellants alternatively claiming as indorsees or holders of bills of lading–Appellants amending writ by adding new bill of lading without leave of court–Whether amendment valid–Order 20 rr 1 (1), 4 (2) and 5 (5) Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

The appellants issued a writ in remagainst the respondents, claiming as owners or consignees of goods shipped aboard the respondents' vessel, or alternatively, as indorsees or holders of four bills of lading which were identified by their numbers. Over a year later, the appellants inserted an amendment consisting of the words “and KKS33” to the endorsement of the writ without the leave of court. The respondents contended that the amendment was invalid. The trial judge agreed and struck out the amendment. The appellants appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Generally, all amendments ought to be allowed for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties or to correct any defect or error in any proceedings. If the applicant had from the beginning formulated his writ which, though defective in some respect, fell within any of the circumstances set out in paras (3), (4) or (5) of O 20 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, no question of depriving any defence of time bar arose. The defects would be treated by the court as having been cured from the beginning: at [5].

(2) In this case, the amendment plainly introduced an entirely new cause of action as it did not arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as a cause of action in respect of which relief had already been claimed by the appellants. The appellants had failed to bring themselves within the scope of para (5) of O 20 r 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, and were out of time in asserting their claim: at [11].

GL Baker Ltd v Medway Building and Supplies Ltd [1958] 1 WLR 1216 (refd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 20rr 1 (1), 4 (2), 5 (5) (consd);O 20r 5

Bills of Lading Act 1855 (c 111) (UK)

Denis Murphy and Vivien Ang (Godwin & Co) for the appellant

G Pannirselvam (Drew & Napier) for the respondent.

Lai Kew Chai J

(delivering the judgment of himself and

A Wahab Ghows J

):

1 This was an appeal against the decision of A P Rajah J who, in allowing the respondents' appeal, ordered that the words “and KKS33” in the endorsement of the writ (“the amendment”) which were amended by the appellants be struck out. The Court of Appeal, of which we were members...