Bonito: Extension of Time for Filing Reference to Registrar for Damages Assessment
In Bonito, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the High Court's decision to grant an extension of time for the respondents to file a reference to the registrar for assessment of damages following a collision between the appellants' vessel, Bonito, and the respondents' vessel, Ah Lam II. The appellants sought to strike out the reference, arguing that the action was dismissed due to the respondents' failure to comply with an 'unless order.' The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the 'unless order' did not apply to the extensions of time granted and that the judge properly exercised discretion in granting the extension, considering the lack of prejudice to the appellants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed whether to grant an extension of time for filing a reference to the registrar for damages assessment. The court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bonito | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Colin Seah, Kelly Yap |
| Ah Lam II | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Danny Chua, Mohd Goush Marikan, Tan Hui Hsing |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Colin Seah | Rajah & Tann |
| Kelly Yap | Rajah & Tann |
| Danny Chua | Joseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo |
| Mohd Goush Marikan | Joseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo |
| Tan Hui Hsing | Joseph Tan Jude Benny Anne Choo |
4. Facts
- A collision occurred between the appellants' vessel, Bonito, and the respondents' vessel, Ah Lam II, on 28 January 1992.
- The respondents commenced an admiralty action against the appellants, claiming damages for the loss.
- The appellants offered to settle the respondents' claim in full, agreeing to pay 50% of the claim as proved or agreed.
- An 'unless order' was made at a pre-trial conference, requiring the respondents to file a notice of discontinuance or a notice for assessment of damages.
- The respondents applied for and were granted extensions of time to file the reference to the registrar for assessment of damages.
- The appellants argued that the action was dismissed due to the respondents' failure to file the reference within the extended time.
- The judge allowed the respondents' appeals, granting a further extension of time.
5. Formal Citations
- Bonito, CA 100/2000, 101/2000, [2001] SGCA 30
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Collision between the appellants' vessel Bonito and the respondents' vessel Ah Lam II | |
| Respondents commenced an admiralty action in rem No 69 of 1992 against the appellants in the High Court | |
| Appellants served an offer to settle the respondents' claim in full | |
| Appellants confirmed that they had no claim against the respondents | |
| Respondents gave notice of acceptance of the offer to the appellants | |
| Pre-trial conference before the assistant registrar; 'unless order' made | |
| Respondents' solicitors delivered a statement containing 32 heads of claim | |
| Respondents applied for an extension of the time to file and serve the notice of appointment for assessment of damages | |
| Order was made extending to 19 October 1997 the time for filing and serving the notice of appointment before the registrar for assessment of damages | |
| Appellants' solicitors requested further information and documents | |
| Respondents filed an application for a further extension of time | |
| Respondents' solicitors provided further information | |
| Respondents complied with the appellants' request for further information and documents | |
| Order was made extending the time to 30 November 1997 | |
| Appellants' solicitors again requested further information and documents | |
| Appellants' solicitors informed the respondents' solicitors that the action had been dismissed | |
| Respondents' solicitors submitted a revised breakdown of the claim | |
| Appellants' solicitors repeated their assertion that the action had been dismissed | |
| Respondents filed and served the reference to registrar for assessment of damages | |
| Appellants applied for an order to strike out the reference to registrar | |
| Assistant registrar granted an order in terms of the striking out application | |
| Respondents filed an application for an extension of time | |
| Assistant registrar dismissed the application for an extension of time | |
| Appeals were heard before Lim Teong Qwee JC; both appeals were allowed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court granted the extension of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Considerable delay to apply for extension
- Unless Order
- Outcome: The court held that the 'unless order' made on 27 March 1997 did not apply to the extensions of time granted on 18 July 1997 and 3 September 1997.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Damages for Loss
- Admiralty Action in Rem
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hitachi Sales (UK) v Mitsui Osk Lines | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 574 | England and Wales | Cited for the strict approach adopted by the courts in considering and dealing with an unless order, specifically that the order must be unambiguous and specify the time limit from a starting time. |
| The Tokai Maru | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a litigant should not be deprived of the opportunity to dispute claims on the merits as a punishment for a breach of rules unless the other party has suffered prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs. |
| Costellow v Somerset County Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 All ER 952 | England and Wales | Cited in The Tokai Maru for principles regarding extension of time and striking out of defence. |
| Costellow v Somerset County Council | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 256 | England and Wales | Cited in The Tokai Maru for principles regarding extension of time and striking out of defence. |
| Leong Mei Chuan v Chan Teck Hock David | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 17 | Singapore | Cited as a recent decision of the court regarding extension of time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of Time
- Unless Order
- Reference to Registrar
- Assessment of Damages
- Admiralty Action
- Pre-Trial Conference
- Settlement
- Striking Out Application
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of Time
- Unless Order
- Damages Assessment
- Admiralty
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Admiralty
- Shipping Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Admiralty Law