Lim Kok Koon v Tan JinHwee Eunice: Appeal Timing Dispute in Fraud Claim Dismissal
In Lim Kok Koon v Tan JinHwee Eunice & Lim ChooEng, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed whether Lim Kok Koon's appeal against the High Court's decision to dismiss his fraud claim against the firm was filed on time. The court found that the notice of appeal was filed out of time but granted an extension of time to file the Notice of Appeal out of time and thus regularised the notice filed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed due to the notice of appeal being filed out of time, but the court granted an extension of time to regularize the notice.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding dismissal of fraud claim. The court addressed whether the appeal notice was filed on time, focusing on the impact of further arguments on costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Kok Koon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan JinHwee Eunice and Lim ChooEng (a firm) | Respondent | Partnership | Motion granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| MPH Rubin | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Lim Kok Koon filed a writ against the firm due to alleged fraud by a partner.
- The firm applied to strike out the writ, which was initially dismissed by the deputy registrar.
- The judge allowed the firm's appeal and struck out the claim, awarding costs of $3,000.
- The firm requested further arguments on costs, which the judge agreed to hear.
- Lim Kok Koon requested certification that the judge required no further arguments.
- The judge increased the costs awarded after hearing further arguments.
- The respondent filed an appeal against the whole of the judgment.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Kok Koon v Tan JinHwee Eunice and Lim ChooEng (a firm), CA 106/2003/Z, NM 121/2003, [2004] SGCA 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Writ issued by Lim Kok Koon against the firm. | |
| Firm applied to strike out the writ. | |
| Judge allowed the appeal and struck out the claim. | |
| Firm requested further arguments on costs. | |
| Lim Kok Koon requested judge's certification that she required no further arguments. | |
| High Court Registry informed parties that the judge would hear further arguments on 16 September 2003. | |
| Further arguments heard on the question of costs; costs increased. | |
| Respondent filed an appeal against the whole of the judgment. | |
| Court of Appeal delivered judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Timeliness of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the notice of appeal was filed out of time but granted an extension of time to regularize the notice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Suspension of judgment
- Extension of time to appeal
- Interlocutory vs Final Order
- Outcome: The court determined that the judge's order to dismiss the action was a final order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Unspecified remedy related to fraud
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salaman v Warner | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England and Wales | Cited to determine whether the decision made was interlocutory or final. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | King's Bench | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Cited to determine whether the decision made was interlocutory or final. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for the court's review of the 'application' and 'order' tests to determine if an order is interlocutory or final. |
| Tee Than Song Construction Co Ltd v Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965–1968] SLR 230 | Singapore | Cited as a decision of the court which held that the Bozson test is the appropriate test. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited as a decision of the court which held that the Bozson test is the appropriate test. |
| Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong (No 2) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 438 | Singapore | Cited as a decision of the court which held that the Bozson test is the appropriate test. |
| L v L | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 222 | Singapore | Cited as a decision of the court which held that the Bozson test is the appropriate test. |
| Thomson Plaza Pte Ltd v The Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 248 | Singapore | Cited regarding the discretion of a judge to allow further arguments on a judgment or part of it and whether the entire order made was suspended. |
| Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson | N/A | Yes | [1991] SLR 578 | Singapore | Cited regarding the judge's discretion to extend time to appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Notice of appeal
- Interlocutory order
- Final order
- Further arguments
- Extension of time
- Certification
15.2 Keywords
- appeal
- fraud
- civil procedure
- Singapore
- court of appeal
- judgment
- legal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 85 |
| Appellate Practice | 70 |
| Extension of Time | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Fraud