Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: See Kee Oon J
• Judgment Date: 02 April 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 88
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 242 of 2019
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 09 April 2019
• Hearing Date: 27 March 2019
• Plaintiff Counsel: Applicant in person
• Defendant Counsel: Ang Leong Hao (Rajah & Tann)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Striking out,Leave to appeal
• Citation: [2019] SGHC 88

See Kee Oon J:

This was an Originating Summons (“OS”) seeking leave to appeal against my decision in Registrar’s Appeal 33 of 2018 (“RAS 33/2018”), in which I had affirmed the decision of the learned District Judge to strike out the applicant’s claim under Order 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”). After hearing the parties, I dismissed the OS. I now set out my reasons for doing so.

As a preliminary matter, among the prayers sought in the present OS, the applicant included a prayer for extension of time to file the OS. The OS was filed on 26 February 2019. This was 11 days after the stipulated seven-day timeline from my decision in RAS 33/2018 on 8 February 2019, as set out at O 56 r 3 ROC. The applicant explained in his supporting affidavit filed on 26 February 2019 that the extension was needed since “the person to effect the formal payment of the security deposit … only arrived back in Singapore from abroad on Monday afternoon of 18 February 2019”. At the hearing, the applicant further stated that this was because this period was just after the Chinese New Year holidays.

The respondent rightly noted in its skeletal submissions that no security is required for the filing of the OS. The application ought therefore to have failed in limine as the applicant did not furnish valid reasons for why the application could not have been filed in time. However, I exercised my discretion to hear the application, giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt having regard to the fact that he was a litigant in person. I should state however that any such indulgence on account of the applicant being unrepresented should not be expected as a matter of entitlement. A similar observation was expressly made by Woo Bih Li J in Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited [2018] SGHC 92 (“the 2018 HC decision”) at [36], and reiterated by the Court of Appeal in BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam [2018] SGCA(I) 7 at [103].

Background

I do not propose to provide a detailed account of the rather involved background facts. The facts have been set out in various judgments, including two judgments of the High Court.¹ Most recently, the facts have been summarised in the Grounds of Decision (“GD”) of the District Judge in Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited [2018] SGDC 309. This GD was issued by the District Judge to explain why he had affirmed the decision of the Deputy Registrar of the State Courts to strike out the action, leading to RAS 33/2018 which came before me for hearing.

Very briefly, the relevant background facts are as follows. The present claim arose from the applicant’s dispute with the respondent over an alleged breach of contract relating to the opening and relocation of a safe deposit box (“the SDB”). He had hired the SDB in February 1999 from the respondent at its then-existing branch at the Specialists’ Shopping Centre (“SSC”) located on Orchard Road. In June 2007, in preparation for the relocation of the SSC branch to new premises at Orchard Point, the SDB was opened by the respondent and its contents accounted for and kept in a sealed security bag. The applicant had been notified beforehand by mail of the respondent’s intended course of action but he did not respond to the notification.

There were disagreements between the parties from 2009 onwards over the signing of the respondent’s prescribed release forms before the applicant could take delivery of his items. It was not disputed, however, that since November 2009 the respondent had proposed an alternative “open offer” for the applicant to open the security bag and account for the items within, without requiring him to waive any rights against the respondent. The applicant was not amenable to the “open offer”. He further disputed the respondent’s notification and attempts to contact him prior to the opening of the SDB in June 2007.

The applicant commenced his claim in the District Court on 7 October 2013. Nearly five years after October 2013, the applicant had not set down the matter for trial. He claimed that he was not ready for trial. In the meantime, there were various interlocutory applications and appeals that reached the High Court, as well as failed applications on the applicant’s part for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The applications brought by the applicant were ancillary to the main suit and included, amongst others, applications for an Anton Piller order, a recusal order in respect of a High Court Judge and a committal order against the respondent’s employee. The applicant’s actions prompted the High Court to observe in the 2018 HC decision (at [90]) that these “skirmishes” were needlessly engaging time and resources and distracting from the substantive action.

I would further note that on 27 September 2017 and 24 October 2017, the respondent had written to inform...