The "Melati" (No 2): Appeal on Extension of Time to File Statement of Claim
In The "Melati" (No 2) case before the Court of Appeal of Singapore on 2004-04-15, the appellant shipowners appealed against the decision of the judge in chambers, who allowed the respondent cargo owners an extension of time to file a Statement of Claim. The Court of Appeal ruled that the appeal was properly filed because the judge's orders were interlocutory and did not constitute a refusal to strike out a statement of claim, thus not requiring leave of court under s 34(2)(d) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal was properly filed as no leave of the judge was required.
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 leave was required to appeal a judge's decision to extend the time for filing a Statement of Claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cargo owners | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal was properly brought | Lost | |
| The "Melati" (No 2) | Appellant | Other | Appeal was properly brought | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The vessel Melati suffered a casualty on 24 December 2000.
- Cargo owners took out a writ in rem against the shipowners on 5 March 2002.
- The in rem writ was served on 12 March 2002.
- The cargo owners filed and served a statement of claim out of time on 18 March 2003.
- The assistant registrar dismissed the cargo owners’ application on 24 April 2003.
- The judge in chambers allowed the appeal on 21 October 2003, extending the time for filing the statement of claim.
- The shipowners filed a notice of appeal on 20 November 2003.
5. Formal Citations
- The "Melati" (No 2), CA 134/2003, NM 16/2004, 21/2004, [2004] SGCA 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Vessel Melati suffered a casualty. | |
| Cargo owners took out a writ in rem against the shipowners. | |
| In rem writ was served. | |
| Appearance was entered. | |
| Statement of claim filed and served out of time. | |
| Assistant registrar dismissed the cargo owners’ application. | |
| Judge in chambers allowed the appeal. | |
| Shipowners requested a certification from the judge. | |
| Judge certified that she would require no further arguments. | |
| Notice of appeal was filed by the shipowners. | |
| Shipowners filed and served the Appellant’s Case, the Record of Appeal, the Core Bundle and the Bundle of Authorities. | |
| Cargo owners alleged that the shipowners had failed to obtain leave of court before filing their notice of appeal. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered its judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether leave of court is required to appeal to the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the orders of the judge in chambers were interlocutory orders and did not constitute a refusal to strike out a statement of claim, thus not requiring leave of court under s 34(2)(d) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of s 34(2)(d) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Nature of orders made by the judge in chambers
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 4 SLR 575
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file Statement of Claim
- Reinstatement of action
9. Cause of Actions
- Cargo Claim
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Admiralty Law
11. Industries
- Shipping
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean J | High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR 575 | Singapore | Decision of Belinda Ang Saw Ean J was appealed against. |
| Herbs and Spices Trading Post Pte Ltd v Deo Silver (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] SLR 1234 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of confirmatory jurisdiction. |
| Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] SGCA 10 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of confirmatory jurisdiction. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that failure to obtain leave goes to jurisdiction and cannot be waived. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) |
| O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) |
| O 21 r 2(8) |
| O 18 r 19(1) of the ROC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 34(2)(d) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leave of court
- Statement of claim
- Extension of time
- Interlocutory orders
- Confirmatory jurisdiction
- Automatic discontinuance
15.2 Keywords
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Shipping
- Statement of Claim
- Extension of Time
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Shipping Law | 70 |
| Admiralty and Maritime Law | 65 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Shipping