Nomura v Ethical Investments: Extension of Time for Appeal Service
In Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application for an extension of time to serve the notice of appeal. The High Court granted the defendant's application, finding that the delay in service was not prolonged, the defendant's solicitors acted promptly to rectify the mistake, and the plaintiffs did not demonstrate significant prejudice. The court considered the relevant principles governing the extension of time to appeal, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent. The court allowed the application and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case regarding extension of time to serve a notice of appeal. The court allowed the extension, considering the circumstances.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Costs awarded | Partial | |
| Ethical Investments Ltd | Defendant, Applicant | Corporation | Application allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Allen & Gledhill |
| Bernice Loo | Allen & Gledhill |
| Terence Teo | Chee & Teo |
4. Facts
- Defendants agreed to subscribe for 50 units of shares in the plaintiffs at US$100,000 per unit.
- The defendants paid US$2.5m as the first instalment for the shares.
- Plaintiffs gave written notice for the payment of the second instalment of US$2.5m.
- Defendants made part-payment of $500,000 but not the balance of $2m.
- Plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants claiming specific performance and damages.
- Summary judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs and specific performance was ordered.
- The notice of appeal was not served on the plaintiffs’ solicitors within the stipulated time.
5. Formal Citations
- Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd, Suit 623/1998, [2000] SGHC 36
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs gave written notice for payment of the second installment. | |
| Plaintiffs sent a further written demand. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced an action against the defendants. | |
| Order for specific performance was discharged. | |
| Defendant's application for relief against forfeiture was dismissed. | |
| Defendants’ previous solicitors filed the notice of appeal. | |
| Defendants’ present solicitors took over the matter. | |
| Notice of appeal was served on M/s Drew & Napier. | |
| Relevant papers served on M/s Allen & Gledhill. | |
| Application allowed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of time for service of notice of appeal
- Outcome: The court granted the extension of time, considering the circumstances of the case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Mistake of solicitor's employee
- Serving notice of appeal on wrong party
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Performance
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Specific Performance
- Damages
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheah Teong Tat v Ho Gee Seng & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1974] 1 MLJ 31 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the requirement to show 'special circumstances' for an extension of time. |
| Cheah Teong Tat v Ho Gee Seng & Ors | Federal Court | Yes | [1975] 2 MLJ 149 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the requirement to show 'special circumstances' for an extension of time. |
| Tan Chai Heng v Yeo Seng Choon | High Court | Yes | SLR 381 | Singapore | Cited regarding solicitor's negligence not being a ground for extending time. |
| Re Coles and Ravenshear | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1907] 1 KB 1 | England and Wales | Cited regarding a mistake on the part of the solicitor not being sufficient to warrant an extension of time. |
| Vettath v Vettath | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Chin Hua Sawmill Co Sdn Bhd v Tuan Yusoff bin Tuan Mohamed | Federal Court | Yes | [1974] 1 MLJ 58 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the interpretation of rules requiring 'special leave' to extend time. |
| Soh Keng Hian v American International Assurance Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 MLJ 191 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the difference in language between the Federal Court Rules and the Court of Appeal Rules regarding special leave to extend time. |
| Sinnathamby & Anor v Lee Chooi Ying | Unknown | Yes | [1987] 1 MLJ 110 | Malaysia | Cited as a case where the court may take into account the mistake of a solicitor or his clerk when deciding whether to grant an extension of time. |
| Gatti v Shoosmith | Unknown | Yes | [1939] 3 All ER 916 | England and Wales | Cited as a case where the English courts had granted an extension of time, in appropriate circumstances, even though the failure to appeal in time was due to a mistake on the part of the legal adviser. |
| Ratnam v Cumarasamy | Privy Council | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 8 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the rules of court needing to be obeyed and the need for material upon which the court can exercise its discretion to extend time. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevant principles governing the extension of time to appeal. |
| Hau Khee Wee & Anor v Chua Kian Tong & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited regarding the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Hau Khee Wee & Anor v Chua Kian Tong & Anor | Unknown | Yes | [1987] 2 MLJ 146 | Singapore | Cited regarding the factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Vithya Sri Sumathis | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited regarding the question of whether the court ought to exercise its discretion to allow an extension of time for the service of a notice of appeal. |
| Tan Thye Heng v Pan Mercantile (S) Pte Ltd & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 973 | Singapore | Cited regarding an appeal only comes into being with the filing and service of a notice of appeal. |
| Tan Thye Heng v Pan Mercantile (S) Pte Ltd & Anor | Unknown | Yes | [1990] 1 MLJ 208 | Singapore | Cited regarding an appeal only comes into being with the filing and service of a notice of appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| O 3 rr 2(5) Rules of Court (1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 3 r 4 Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 56 r 1(3) Rules of Court (1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Notice of appeal
- Service of notice
- Special circumstances
- Rules of Court
- Solicitor's mistake
15.2 Keywords
- Civil procedure
- Appeal
- Extension of time
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Appeal | 90 |
| Extension of Time | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
| Relief Against Forfeiture | 30 |
| Summary Judgement | 20 |
| Damages | 20 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Extension of Time