Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd: Extension of Time for Appeal
In Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal dismissed Denko's motion for an extension of time to request further arguments and file an appeal against an interlocutory order made by the High Court. The underlying action was a claim by Fagerdala for money due on goods sold, where Denko sought a stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens. The court found that Denko's delay in applying for further arguments was substantial and lacked sufficient justification, and that the Court of Appeal did not have original jurisdiction to grant the extension.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Motion dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal dismissed Denko's motion for an extension of time to request further arguments and file an appeal. The case concerned an interlocutory order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd | Appellant | Corporation | Motion dismissed | Lost | |
| Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Motion dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Fagerdala sued Denko for money due on goods sold.
- Denko applied for a stay of proceedings based on forum non conveniens.
- The SAR granted the stay, but Lai Siu Chiu J reversed the order.
- Denko's solicitor failed to apply for further arguments within the prescribed time.
- Denko applied for an extension of time to request further arguments and file an appeal.
- The Registrar of the Supreme Court rejected Denko's request as out of time.
- Fagerdala argued that the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to grant the extension.
5. Formal Citations
- Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd, CA 21/2002, NM 13/2002, [2002] SGCA 31
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit 1241/2001 filed by Fagerdala against Denko for money due on goods sold. | |
| Lai Siu Chiu J allowed Fagerdala's appeal and reversed the SAR's order for a stay of proceedings. | |
| Denko instructed its solicitor to appeal. | |
| Denko's solicitor applied for further arguments. | |
| Fagerdala objected to the application for further arguments. | |
| Denko filed the notice of appeal. | |
| The Registrar of the Supreme Court notified Denko that their request for further arguments and notice of appeal were invalid. | |
| The Court of Appeal heard the motion and dismissed it. | |
| The Court of Appeal delivered the grounds of judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time
- Outcome: The court held that the delay was substantial, the reason for the delay was insufficient, and therefore the extension of time was not granted.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Oversight of solicitor
- Length of delay
- Prejudice to other party
- Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that it did not have original jurisdiction to grant an extension of time prescribed in s 34(1)(c) of the SCJA.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Original jurisdiction
- Appellate jurisdiction
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to request further arguments
- Extension of time to file a notice of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for money due on goods sold
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Press Holdings v Brown Noel Trading | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 151 | Singapore | Cited for the effect of a judge certifying that he wished to hear further arguments. |
| Thomson Plaza v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 248 | Singapore | Cited for the effect of a judge certifying that he wished to hear further arguments. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether to grant an extension of time to file and/or serve a notice of appeal. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 3 MLJ 208 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether to grant an extension of time to file and/or serve a notice of appeal. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund v Ethical Investments | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether to grant an extension of time to file and/or serve a notice of appeal and mistake or oversight on the part of the solicitor. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia v Fraser & Neave | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when determining whether to grant an extension of time to file and/or serve a notice of appeal. |
| The Tokai Maru | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and an application to extend time in relation to other matters. |
| Tan Chiang Brother`s Marble (S) v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited for extenuating circumstances in relation to the solicitor`s mistakes or oversight. |
| Gatti v Shoosmith | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1939] 3 All ER 916 | England and Wales | Cited for adopting a similar approach to extenuating circumstances in relation to the solicitor`s mistakes or oversight. |
| Palata Investments v Burt & Sinfield | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 2 All ER 517 | England and Wales | Cited for adopting a similar approach to extenuating circumstances in relation to the solicitor`s mistakes or oversight. |
| Seabridge Transport v Olivine Electronics | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 545 | Singapore | Cited for the approach of applying to the judge to extend time for making the request for further arguments. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) s 34(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) s 37(2) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) Sch 1 para 7 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A(1) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act s 29A(3) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Interlocutory order
- Forum non conveniens
- Further arguments
- Jurisdiction
- Oversight
- Prejudice
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
15.2 Keywords
- extension of time
- appeal
- interlocutory order
- jurisdiction
- civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 85 |
| Jurisdiction | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
| Asset Recovery | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Jurisdiction
- Appeals