Kian Wah Hung v William Interior Design: Extension of Time for Appeal in Sale of Goods Dispute
In the High Court of Singapore, Judicial Commissioner Woo Bih Li dismissed Kian Wah Hung (Private) Limited's application for an extension of time to file the Record of Appeal and Appellant’s Case against William Interior Design. The application was dismissed due to insufficient reasons for the delay, despite the awareness of the appeal and the counsel's admission of fault. The underlying case involves a dispute related to the sale of goods.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Kian Wah Hung's application for an extension of time to file an appeal against William Interior Design, citing insufficient grounds for the delay.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kian Wah Hung (Private) Limited | Appellant, Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed with costs | Lost | |
| William Interior Design | Respondent, Plaintiff | Other | Application dismissed with costs | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Patrick Chin | Chin Patrick Dennis Loh & Co |
| Gordon Oh | Ari, Goh & Partners |
4. Facts
- WID commenced an action against Kian Wah in the District Court.
- Kian Wah filed a Notice of Appeal on 24 February 2001.
- Kian Wah's solicitors were notified on 13 July 2001 that the Record of Proceedings was available.
- Kian Wah was required to file the Record of Appeal and Appellant’s Case by 13 August 2001.
- Mr. Chin filed an application for leave to file the Record of Appeal and Appellant’s Case out of time on 10 August 2001.
- Mr. Chin misread the date on the Registrar’s Notice, leading to a misconstrued deadline.
5. Formal Citations
- Kian Wah Hung (Private) Limited v William Interior Design, DCA 600007/2001, SIC 601839/2001, [2001] SGHC 332
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Trial concluded | |
| Notice of Appeal filed | |
| Counsel commenced practice under the name Chin Patrick, Dennis Loh & Co | |
| Registrar notified Kian Wah's solicitors that the Record of Proceedings was available | |
| Kian Wah's solicitors received the Registrar's notice | |
| Application for leave to file Record of Appeal and Appellant’s Case out of time filed | |
| Hearing adjourned for further research | |
| Hearing adjourned to a date to be fixed | |
| Application dismissed with costs | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to File Appeal Documents
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for extension of time, finding insufficient grounds to justify the delay.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasons for delay
- Prejudice to the respondent
- Chances of appeal succeeding
- Related Cases:
- [1986] SLR 484
- [1999] 1 SLR 212
- [1992] 1 SLR 1
- [1993] 2 SLR 592
- [2000] 2 SLR 686
- [2000] 4 SLR 46
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file appeal documents
9. Cause of Actions
- Sale of Goods
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Interior Design
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hau Khee Wee & anor v Chua Kian Tong & anor | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to be considered in an application for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for adopting the factors stated in Hau Khee Wee’s case as a framework in the exercise of the court’s discretion to extend time. |
| Vettath v Vettath | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that sufficient grounds must be shown to persuade the court to show sympathy to the applicant in an application to file a Notice of Appeal out of time. |
| Bank of India v Rai Bahadur Singh & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to be considered in an application for extension of time, but the court did not adopt the approach in this case. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the factors in Hau Khee Wee’s case apply to an application to extend time to serve a notice of appeal filed within time. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for upholding the factors in Hau Khee Wee’s case and stating that there is no distinction between the filing and the service of a Notice of Appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 55C rule 6(1) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 55D r 6(5) | Singapore |
| Order 55D rules 5(3) | Singapore |
| Order 55D rules 5(4) | Singapore |
| Order 2 r 1(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Record of Appeal
- Appellant’s Case
- Rules of Court
- Registrar’s Notice
- Accrued right
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of time
- Appeal
- Late filing
- Rules of Court
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Sale of Goods | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Extension of Time