Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG: Appeal Dismissal & Time to File Appeal
In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG, the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on 17 January 2005, dismissed Anthony Wee Soon Kim's appeal against a High Court decision due to the appeal being filed out of time. The court addressed the issue of when the time to file an appeal begins, specifically whether it runs from the date of the decision appealed against or from the date the judge certifies no further argument is required. The court also considered arguments related to an extension of time, striking out the appeal, and other procedural matters, ultimately striking out the appeal with costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal struck out.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal by Anthony Wee Soon Kim against UBS AG dismissed due to late filing. The court clarified the deadline for appeal and addressed procedural issues.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Costs awarded | Won | Wilson Hue of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| The Law Society of Singapore | Respondent | Statutory Board | Costs awarded | Won | |
| UBS AG | Respondent | Corporation | Application to strike out appeal granted | Won | |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony | Appellant | Individual | Appeal struck out | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | No |
| Lai Kew Chai | Judge | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wilson Hue | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Laurence Goh Eng Yau | Laurence Goh Eng Yau and Co |
| Hri Kumar | Drew and Napier LLC |
| Gary Low | Drew and Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Mr. Wee appealed against a decision made on 30 June 2004; his appeal was filed on 12 August 2004.
- UBS filed an application on 2 November 2004 to strike out Mr. Wee’s appeal as it was filed out of time.
- Mr. Wee had applied to admit Gerald Godfrey, Queen’s Counsel, to represent him in a suit against UBS.
- The application to admit Mr. Godfrey was dismissed on 15 October 2002, and Mr. Wee was ordered to pay costs.
- Mr. Wee appealed the dismissal, and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal with costs on 17 March 2003.
- UBS’s solicitors drafted the order of the Court of Appeal and extracted it without sending the draft to Mr. Wee.
- Mr. Wee argued that the one-month deadline to file an appeal ran from 20 July 2004, not 30 June 2004.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others, CA 68/2004, [2005] SGCA 3
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Application to admit Gerald Godfrey, Queen’s Counsel, dismissed. | |
| First Appeal heard by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Goh Aik Leng discharged from acting for Mr. Wee. | |
| First Appeal dismissed with costs. | |
| Bill of costs served on Mr. Wee. | |
| Taxation hearing held; bill taxed. | |
| Mr. Wee appointed M/s Chor Pee & Partners as his solicitors. | |
| Notice of Appointment of Solicitor served on Drew & Napier. | |
| Drew & Napier sent Chor Pee & Partners a copy of the Registrar’s Certificate. | |
| Registrar clarified that Mr. Anthony Wee was to pay the costs of the appeal personally. | |
| Mr. Wee applied to set aside the extracted order. | |
| Mr. Wee’s application dismissed by Rajah JC. | |
| Chor Pee & Partners requested further arguments. | |
| Mr. Wee filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person. | |
| Registrar replied that Rajah JC did not wish to hear further arguments. | |
| Mr. Wee filed his appeal No 68 of 2004 against the decision of Rajah JC. | |
| Respondent’s Case for UBS filed by Drew & Napier. | |
| UBS applied to strike out the Second Appeal. | |
| UBS’s application and the Second Appeal came up for hearing. | |
| Appeal struck out. |
7. Legal Issues
- Time to File Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the one-month deadline to file an appeal ran from the date of the order appealed against, not from the date the judge certified no further argument required.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Calculation of deadline
- Request for further arguments
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 4 SLR 441
- Extension of Time to File Appeal
- Outcome: The court declined to extend the time to file the Second Appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1986] SLR 484
- [1991] SLR 212
- [1992] 1 SLR 1
- [2000] 4 SLR 46
- Meaning of 'Usual Consequential Orders'
- Outcome: The court held that the usual consequential order in an unsuccessful appeal is that the security deposit is to be released to the respondent to account of costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Bona Fide Ambiguity as to Court Order
- Outcome: The court held that it is not functus officio when clarifying an order after a hearing.
- Category: Procedural
- Striking Out Appeal Filed Out of Time
- Outcome: The court allowed the application to strike out the appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application to strike out
- Estoppel
- Bad faith
- Application to Admit Queen's Counsel
- Outcome: The court clarified that the party seeking admission of Queen's Counsel is the substantive applicant.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the extracted order
- Appeal of the decision
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Godfrey Gerald, Queen’s Counsel v UBS AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR 306 | Singapore | Cited regarding the discharge of Mr. Goh Aik Leng from acting for Mr. Wee. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Unknown | No | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that the time to file an appeal runs from the date of the substantive decision and not from the date of refusal to hear further arguments. |
| Kuah Kok Kim v Chong Lee Leong Seng Co (Pte) Ltd | Unknown | No | [1991] SLR 122 | Singapore | Cited for observations about O 2 r 1 of the Rules of Court regarding non-compliance with rules. |
| Chen Chien Wen Edwin v Pearson | Unknown | Yes | [1991] SLR 578 | Singapore | Cited regarding the High Court's jurisdiction to hear an application to extend the time for filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal. |
| Tan Chiang Brother’s Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited regarding a single judge sitting as the Court of Appeal having no jurisdiction to hear an application to strike out. |
| Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong | Unknown | Yes | [1986] SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable factors for an extension of time to appeal. |
| Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Unknown | Yes | [1991] SLR 212 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable factors for an extension of time to appeal. |
| Vettath v Vettath | Unknown | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable factors for an extension of time to appeal. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 46 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable factors for an extension of time to appeal. |
| Costellow v Somerset County Council | Unknown | No | [1993] 1 WLR 256 | Unknown | Cited to submit that a litigant should not be deprived of his opportunity to dispute the other party’s claims as a punishment for a breach of the rules of court. |
| The Tokai Maru | Unknown | No | [1998] 3 SLR 105 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that unless a delay can be characterised as an abuse of process, the court should not exercise its jurisdiction to strike out proceedings. |
| Oley and Moffatt v Frederiction, City of | Unknown | No | (1983) 50 NBR (2d) 196 | Unknown | Cited regarding the court's power to vary, modify or extend its own order even after judgment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court O 2 r 1(1) |
| Rules of Court O 2 r 2(1) |
| Rules of Court O 3 rr 4(3) |
| Rules of Court O 3 rr 4(5) |
| Rules of Court O 42 rr 8(1) |
| Rules of Court O 42 rr 8(5) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 16(4) |
| Rules of Court O 57 r 17 |
| Rules of Court O 92 r 4 |
| Rules of Court O 92 r 5 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2001 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| 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
- Striking out
- Functus officio
- Estoppel
- Queen's Counsel
- Security deposit
- Usual consequential orders
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Time
- Striking out
- Costs
- Procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Judgments and Orders | 90 |
| Striking out | 85 |
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Legal Profession Act | 70 |
| Ad Hoc Admission | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Time to file appeal
- Extension of time
- Judgments and orders
- Striking out
- Legal Profession
- Admission
- Ad hoc