Aberdeen Asset Management v Fraser & Neave: Appeal Timing & Interlocutory Orders in Defamation Case
In Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and Another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and Others, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed two notices of motion related to CA 600057/2001. The first motion sought to strike out the notice of appeal filed by Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and Hugh Young ('Aberdeen & Young') against Fraser & Neave Ltd and others ('F&N and others') in a defamation suit, arguing it was filed out of time. The second motion sought an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal. The court considered whether the order of Tan J was interlocutory or final, when the time to appeal began, and whether an extension of time should be granted. The Court allowed the motion of Aberdeen & Young.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appellants' motion allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding defamation claim. Court of Appeal addressed appeal timing for interlocutory orders and granted extension of time.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd | Appellant, Respondent | Corporation | Motion Allowed | Won | |
| Hugh Young | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Motion Allowed | Won | |
| Fraser & Neave Ltd | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Motion Opposed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- F&N and others filed a civil suit against Aberdeen & Young for defamation.
- The defamation claim was based on a letter published by Aberdeen & Young in the Business Times.
- F&N applied for a determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of certain statements in the letter.
- The assistant registrar ruled that the words in question generally bore the defamatory meaning alleged.
- Tan Lee Meng J found the words to be defamatory but modified the meaning.
- Aberdeen & Young requested further arguments, which were denied.
- Aberdeen & Young filed their notice of appeal out of time.
5. Formal Citations
- Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and Another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and Others, CA 600057/200, [2001] SGCA 65
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Letter published by Aberdeen & Young in the Business Times | |
| Fraser & Neave Ltd and three others filed a civil suit against Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and Hugh Young for defamation | |
| F&N and others filed an application under O 14 r 12 for a determination of the natural and ordinary meaning of certain statements in the letter | |
| Assistant registrar ruled that the words in question generally bore the defamatory meaning alleged in the statement of claim | |
| Tan Lee Meng J found the words to be defamatory but he slightly modified that defamatory meaning from that determined by the assistant registrar | |
| Solicitors for Aberdeen & Young wrote to the Registrar and requested for further arguments | |
| Registrar informed the solicitors of Aberdeen & Young that the judge did not require further arguments | |
| Appellants filed their notice of appeal against the decision of Tan J made on 21 March 2001 | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Appeal Timing
- Outcome: The court held that the one-month period runs from the date the order was pronounced.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Extension of time to file notice of appeal
- When time for filing notice begins to run
- Interlocutory vs Final Order
- Outcome: The court held that the order of Tan J was an interlocutory order.
- Category: Procedural
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court granted an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for Defamation
9. Cause of Actions
- Defamation
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Asset Management
- Media
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strathmore Group v Fraser | Privy Council | Yes | [1992] 2 AC 172 | New Zealand | Cited regarding whether a decision on a preliminary issue was a final order. |
| Tee Than Song Construction Co v Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965-1968] SLR 230 | Singapore | Cited for the proper test to be applied in determining whether an order was interlocutory or final. |
| Salaman v Warner | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England | Cited for the 'application test' in determining whether an order is interlocutory or final. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | King's Bench | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England | Cited for the 'order test' in determining whether an order is interlocutory or final. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) v Ultra Marketing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited to reaffirm the view that the Bozson test was the correct test to apply. |
| Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 438 | Singapore | Cited to reaffirm the view that the Bozson test was the correct test to apply. |
| White v Brunton | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984] QB 570 | England | Cited regarding a decision on a preliminary issue of documentary construction being a final order. |
| White v Brunton | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984] 2 All ER 606 | England | Cited regarding a decision on a preliminary issue of documentary construction being a final order. |
| Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1971] 2 QB 597 | England | Cited to acknowledge that the question of whether an order is interlocutory or final is sometimes not an easy one to decide. |
| Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1971] 2 All ER 865 | England | Cited to acknowledge that the question of whether an order is interlocutory or final is sometimes not an easy one to decide. |
| Seow Teck Ming v Tan Ah Yeo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 169 | Singapore | Cited regarding when time began to run for filing the notice of appeal when the appellant was informed of the judge`s notification that the latter did not wish to hear further arguments. |
| Seow Teck Ming v Tan Ah Yeo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 MLJ 489 | Singapore | Cited regarding when time began to run for filing the notice of appeal when the appellant was informed of the judge`s notification that the latter did not wish to hear further arguments. |
| Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Chai Yen | Privy Council | Yes | [1980] 1 MLJ 198 | Malaysia | Cited regarding when time began to run for filing the notice of appeal when the appellant was informed of the judge`s notification that the latter did not wish to hear further arguments. |
| Thomson Plaza v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 248 | Singapore | Cited regarding time only begins to run from the date the judge makes his decision after hearing further arguments. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited regarding the factors which the court should take into consideration in determining whether it should exercise its discretion to extend time to enable an applicant to file a notice of appeal out of time. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | High Court | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 208 | Singapore | Cited regarding the factors which the court should take into consideration in determining whether it should exercise its discretion to extend time to enable an applicant to file a notice of appeal out of time. |
| Vettath v Vettath | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the factors which the court should take into consideration in determining whether it should exercise its discretion to extend time to enable an applicant to file a notice of appeal out of time. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund v Ethical Investments | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether a mistake made by a solicitor or his staff could constitute a sufficient ground for the court to exercise its discretion to extend time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Gatti v Shoosmith | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1939] Ch 841 | England | Cited regarding a mistake might be a sufficient ground to justify the court in exercising its discretion. |
| Gatti v Shoosmith | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1939] 3 All ER 916 | England | Cited regarding a mistake might be a sufficient ground to justify the court in exercising its discretion. |
| Palata Investments v Burt & Sinfield | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 2 All ER 517 | England | Cited regarding a flexible approach. |
| Sinnathamby v Lee Chooi Ying | Federal Court | Yes | [1987] 1 MLJ 110 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the change in the rules also had its impact on judicial attitudes. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 56 r 2(2) Rules of Court |
| O 56 r 3 Rules of Court |
| O 57 r 4(a) Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interlocutory order
- Final order
- Notice of appeal
- Extension of time
- Defamatory meaning
- Further arguments
- Deeming provision
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Interlocutory
- Defamation
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
- Extension of Time
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 95 |
| Appellate Litigation | 70 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Defamation
- Appeals
- Litigation