Projector SA v Marubeni: Amendment of Notice of Appeal and Prejudice to Respondent

In Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard a motion by Projector SA to set aside an order denying their application to amend a notice of appeal. The court allowed Projector's application, finding that the amendment would not result in grave prejudice to Marubeni and that the lack of candor in Projector's affidavits was not an exceptional factor warranting rejection of the amendment. The court granted Projector leave to amend its notice of appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding amendment of notice of appeal. The court allowed the amendment, finding no grave prejudice to the respondent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte LtdRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal LostLost
Projector SAAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of AppealNo
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ian KohDrew and Napier LLC
Werner TsuDrew and Napier LLC
Sean La’BrooyRodyk and Davidson
Lok Vi MingRodyk and Davidson
Lawrence TehRodyk and Davidson
Govind AsokanRodyk and Davidson

4. Facts

  1. Projector sought to amend its notice of appeal to include an appeal against a condition imposed by Ang J.
  2. Woo J dismissed the application to amend the notice of appeal due to a lack of candour in the affidavits.
  3. The initial notice of appeal only challenged the reservation of damages and costs to the trial judge.
  4. Marubeni argued that it would be prejudiced by the amendment because it had taken steps in South Korea to protect the cash deposit.
  5. Projector's solicitors initially cited miscommunication as the reason for the omission in the notice of appeal.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd (No 2), CA 42/2004, NM 71/2004, [2004] SGCA 58

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Marubeni started action to enforce rights under two letters of indemnity.
Projector applied to discharge the injunction.
Projector made payment to secure release of vessel.
Hearing before Belinda Ang Saw Ean J.
Projector filed a notice of appeal.
Projector filed an application to amend its notice of appeal.
Woo J dismissed the application with costs.
Notice of Motion heard.
Court allowed Projector’s application and set aside the order made by Woo J.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Notice of Appeal
    • Outcome: The court allowed the amendment, finding no grave prejudice to the respondent that could not be addressed by costs, and that the lack of candour was not serious enough to reject the application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of candour
      • Prejudice to respondent

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Leave to amend notice of appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Petroleum

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Projector SA v Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 241SingaporeCited regarding Projector's application for leave to amend its notice of appeal.
Marubeni International Petroleum (S) Pte Ltd v Projector SAHigh CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 233SingaporeCited regarding the orders made by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J.
Leong Mei Chuan v Chan Teck Hock DavidCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR 17SingaporeCited for the principles regarding amendment of a notice of appeal.
Costellow v Somerset County CouncilEnglish Court of AppealYes[1993] 1 All ER 952England and WalesCited for the principle that an application for extension of time should be granted where the overall justice of the case requires that the action be allowed to proceed.
The Tokai MaruHigh CourtYes[1998] 3 SLR 105SingaporeCited regarding the power to strike out an action for abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 32, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Notice of appeal
  • Amendment
  • Prejudice
  • Lack of candour
  • Grave prejudice
  • Miscommunication
  • Cash deposit
  • Injunction

15.2 Keywords

  • amendment
  • notice of appeal
  • prejudice
  • civil procedure
  • singapore
  • court of appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure90
Appellate Litigation70
Injunctions60
Letters of Indemnity50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals