Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | District Court (Singapore) |
Judge | James Leong Kiu Yiu |
Judgment Date | 10 December 2018 |
Neutral Citation | [2018] SGDC 309 |
Citation | [2018] SGDC 309 |
Docket Number | District Court Suit No. 3051 of 2013, Registrar’s Appeal No. 72 of 2018, RAS 33 of 2018 |
Published date | 09 April 2019 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr Werner Samuel Vuillemin (The plaintiff) in-person |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Ang Leong Hao (Hong Lianghao) (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Hearing Date | 08 November 2018,16 October 2018 |
This Registrar’s Appeal arises from the defendant’s application in Summons 1960/2018 to strike out the plaintiff’s claim under Order 18 r 19 (O18 r 19) of the Rules of Court (ROC). I affirmed the decision of the Deputy Registrar to strike out the action and the plaintiff has since appealed against my decision to the High Court. I now set out the reasons for my decision.
FactsThe plaintiff who is a Swiss national ordinarily resident out of Singapore is a customer of the defendant, a bank incorporated in Singapore providing banking services for its customers. On 12 February 1999, the plaintiff hired a safe deposit box located in the defendant’s Specialist Centre branch. In 2007, the defendant moved the branch at Specialist Centre to Orchard Point. Prior to the move, the defendant informed the plaintiff that if the safe deposit box was not relocated or discontinued by 17 June 2007, the defendant would open the safe deposit box and keep the contents in a sealed security bag at a fee. When the plaintiff who had given instructions to the defendant to hold his mail did not respond, the defendant opened the safe deposit box on 28 June 2007. The items in the safe deposit box were collected, accounted for and recorded by the external accountants, Messrs LTC Associates, and placed in a sealed bag.
At a meeting on 2 December 2009 the plaintiff alleged that although he had signed the forms as required by the defendant, he was not allowed to collect the contents of the safe deposit box because he had reserved all his rights against the defendant. However, it is not in dispute that since as early as 10 November 2009, the defendant had offered an alternative to the plaintiff to open the security bag and account for the items which did not require the plaintiff to waive his rights against the defendant or sign their “prescribed release forms”. Instead of accepting this alternative “open offer”, the plaintiff acting in person commenced the current writ action on 7 October 2013 claiming in the statement of claim for:
Without specifying the damages that he seeks, he states at [8](ii) of the statement of claim the following particulars of loss and/or damages and/or expenses:
Since the commencement of the action, the parties have filed various interlocutory applications and appeals that have been escalated to the High Court no less than three times. The plaintiff has also sought and been refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal a decision of the High Court in Summons 1520 of 2018 in relation to the plaintiff’s application for the recusal of the Judge. These various applications have been described by the High Court in
At the hearing before the Deputy Registrar on 16 August 2018, the defendant relied on all four limbs of O 18 r 19 of the ROC. On 20 August 2018, the Deputy Registrar granted the defendant’s application to strike out the plaintiff’s action with costs of the application and main action fixed at $ 8500. In his comprehensive oral grounds, the Deputy Registrar found that the plaintiff’s claim was (a) an abuse of process (b) frivolous and (c) time barred, thereby disclosing no reasonable cause of action as well as falling within the ambit of an abuse of the process of the court. For completeness, the defendant in the same application had also sought consequential orders for the sealed bag to be opened and collected by the plaintiff under O 92 r 5 of the ROC, which the Deputy Registrar declined to make.
Applicable Legal Principles The applicable legal principles in relation to striking out under O 18 r 19 of the ROC are succinctly summarised in the High Court decision of
Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18, r. 19)
To continue reading
Request your trial