Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products: Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
In Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation), the Singapore Court of Appeal granted Ong Cheng Aik's application for an extension of time to file his Record of Appeal, Core Bundle, and Appellant’s Case. Ong Cheng Aik had appealed the trial judge's decision ordering him to pay US$598,695.37 for breaches of fiduciary duties. The court considered the reasons for the delay, including Ong's attempts to engage a Senior Counsel, and found no real prejudice to Dayco Products.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ong Cheng Aik sought an extension to file his Record of Appeal. The Court of Appeal granted the extension, considering the reasons for the delay and lack of prejudice to Dayco Products.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Cheng Aik | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Application granted | Won | |
| Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Costs awarded | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The respondent sued the appellant for breaches of fiduciary duties.
- The trial judge ordered the appellant to pay US$598,695.37 in damages.
- The appellant filed a notice of appeal against the judgment.
- The appellant sought an extension of time to file the Record of Appeal.
- The appellant wanted to engage a Senior Counsel to argue his appeal.
- The application for extension of time was made before the expiry of the prescribed time.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation), CA 88/2004, NM 117/2004, [2005] SGCA 14
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Trial judge found claim proven and ordered appellant to pay damages. | |
| Appellant filed a notice of appeal against the judgment. | |
| Appellant filed a notice of motion seeking a 21-day extension to file the Record of Appeal. | |
| Woo Bih Li J dismissed the application for extension of time. | |
| Applicant filed a motion seeking a review by a full quorum of the Court of Appeal. | |
| Motion heard by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Application for extension of time granted. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to File Record of Appeal
- Outcome: The court granted the extension of time, finding sufficient material to exercise its discretion in favor of the appellant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Reason for delay
- Merits of appeal
- Prejudice to respondent
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of Time
- Appeal of Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for factors the court should take into account in determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Vettath v Vettath | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for factors the court should take into account in determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| The Tokai Maru | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for factors the court should take into account in determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd v Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for factors the court should take into account in determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for factors the court should take into account in determining whether an extension of time should be granted. |
| Ratnam v Cumarasamy | Privy Council | Yes | [1965] 1 MLJ 228 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that there must be some material upon which the court can exercise its discretion in granting an extension of time. |
| Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong | High Court | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to consider when assessing an application for extension of time: length of delay, reason for delay, merits of appeal, and prejudice. |
| Bank of India v Rai Bahadur Smith | High Court | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 592 | Singapore | Cited to highlight the difference between an application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal out of time and that for an extension of time to file or serve the record of appeal out of time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 57 r 9(1) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Record of Appeal
- Senior Counsel
- Prejudice
- Breach of fiduciary duties
15.2 Keywords
- extension of time
- record of appeal
- appeal
- civil procedure
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Extension of Time | 85 |
| Appellate Practice | 70 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Time Extensions