Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General: Appeal Dismissed for Procedural Non-Compliance

In Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed an appeal by Lai Swee Lin Linda against two orders arising from separate actions: an employment action and a bankruptcy action. The court, delivered by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC, found that the appellant improperly consolidated the appeals, failed to comply with section 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act regarding interlocutory orders, and filed the notice of appeal out of time. The court held that financial hardship was not a sufficient excuse for non-compliance with procedural rules and dismissed the appeal with costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed due to procedural breaches, including improper consolidation and failure to comply with Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Financial hardship is not an excuse.

1.7 Decision Date

6 December 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Application Allowed	Won	Leong Kwang Ian of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lai Swee Lin Linda	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lai Swee Lin Linda of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Judicial Commissioner	Yes
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Leong Kwang Ian	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lai Swee Lin Linda	Independent Practitioner

4. Facts

The appellant appealed against two orders in chambers arising from two separate actions.
The respondent brought an application to set aside one of the appeals.
The appellant consolidated the appeals without an order of court.
The appellant did not apply to the judge for further arguments within the stipulated time.
The appellant filed and served her Notice of Appeal well beyond the stipulated period.
The appellant cited financial difficulties as a reason for her tardiness in filing and serving her Notice of Appeal.

5. Formal Citations

Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General, CA 87/2005, NM 81/2005, [2005] SGCA 58

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2000-01-01	Lai Swee Lin Linda sought leave for orders of certiorari and mandamus in the public law action.
2001-01-01	The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court's decision in Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda.
2004-01-01	The appellant brought the employment action.
2005-01-01	The respondent applied to strike out parts of the appellant’s Statement of Claim in the employment action.
2005-01-01	The appellant applied for a stay of the bankruptcy action.
2005-12-07	The Court of Appeal delivered its decision dismissing the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Consolidation of Appeals
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant was not at liberty to unilaterally consolidate the appeals without an order of court.
- Category: Procedural
Compliance with Section 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the point of compliance with section 34(1)(c) of the SCJA.
- Category: Procedural
Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that there were no grounds to merit the exercise of the court’s discretion to grant an extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal out of time.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

No remedies sought

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
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Public Service Commission	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 162	Singapore	Cited as the initial proceedings where the appellant sought orders of certiorari and mandamus, which were ultimately denied.
Public Service Commission v Lai Swee Lin Linda	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 644	Singapore	Cited as the Court of Appeal's decision reversing the High Court's grant of leave for certiorari and holding that the appellant should pursue her rights under contract law.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG	High Court	Yes	[2005] SGHC 182	Singapore	Cited as the decision affirming the dismissal of the appellant's application for a stay of the bankruptcy action.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong (No 3)	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR 178	Singapore	Cited for the principle that rules of procedure are in place to save costs, time, and effort in handling related actions.
Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 3 SLR 151	Singapore	Cited for the purpose of section 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act and Order 56 rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1988] SGHC 104	Singapore	Cited for the principle that section 34(2) contemplates a situation where a party adversely affected by an interlocutory order may wish to appeal against that order but before so doing would like the judge to reconsider the order.
Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1903] 1 KB 547	England and Wales	Cited for the 'order' test to distinguish between interlocutory and final orders.
Salaman v Warner	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1891] 1 QB 734	England and Wales	Cited as the case that laid down the 'application' test, which was not preferred to the 'order' test.
Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 441	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case endorsing the 'order' test laid down in Bozson.
Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 73	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case endorsing the 'order' test laid down in Bozson.
Jumabhoy Asad v Aw Cheok Huat Mick	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 99	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case endorsing the 'order' test laid down in Bozson.
Lim Kok Koon v Tan JinHwee Eunice & Lim ChooEng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 322	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case endorsing the 'order' test laid down in Bozson.
Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] SLR 212	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing the jurisdiction of the court to extend the time for filing and/or serving a Notice of Appeal.
Hau Khee Wee v Chua Kian Tong	High Court	Yes	[1986] SLR 484	Singapore	Cited as a case that utilized four factors to ascertain whether or not the court should be persuaded to grant an extension of time.
Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Vithya Sri Sumathis	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR 239	Singapore	Cited as a case that utilized four factors to ascertain whether or not the court should be persuaded to grant an extension of time.
Tan Chiang Brother’s Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR 225	Singapore	Cited as a case that utilized four factors to ascertain whether or not the court should be persuaded to grant an extension of time.
AD v AE	High Court	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR 505	Singapore	Cited as a case that utilized four factors to ascertain whether or not the court should be persuaded to grant an extension of time.
Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR 561	Singapore	Cited as a case that utilized four factors to ascertain whether or not the court should be persuaded to grant an extension of time.
Thamboo Ratnam v Thamboo Cumarasamy and Cumarasamy Ariamany d/o Kumarasa	Privy Council	Yes	[1965] 1 WLR 8	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, with reasonable diligence being exercised.
Tan Chai Heng v Yeo Seng Choon	High Court	Yes	[1980–1981] SLR 381	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Rules of Court must prima facie be obeyed, with reasonable diligence being exercised.
The Melati	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 7	Singapore	Cited for the 'paramount consideration' is the need for finality.
Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2000] 4 SLR 46	Singapore	Cited for the threshold for chances of appeal succeeding.
Gleeson v J Wippell & Co Ltd	English High Court	Yes	[1977] 1 WLR 510	England and Wales	Cited for the principle of 'privity of interest' between statutory bodies.
Tohru Motobayashi v OR	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 4 SLR 529	Singapore	Cited for the principle of 'privity of interest' between statutory bodies.
AG v Ng Hock Guan	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the argument that the appellant was now bringing her claim by way of an application for a declaration and thus fell within the scope of Ng Hock Guan instead.
Ng Hock Guan v AG	High Court	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 415	Singapore	Cited for the argument that the appellant was now bringing her claim by way of an application for a declaration and thus fell within the scope of Ng Hock Guan instead.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited for the criteria applied by the court in an application for leave to apply for certiorari.
Chan Hiang Leng Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 644	Singapore	Cited for the criteria applied by the court in an application for leave to apply for certiorari.
De Souza Lionel Jerome v AG	High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR 882	Singapore	Cited for the argument that the appellant was nevertheless entitled, on the authority of Ng Hock Guan, to succeed if her application was mounted in the form of a declaration instead.
Haco Far East Pte Ltd v Ong Heh Lai Francis	High Court	Yes	[1999] SGHC 152	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the same party cannot re-litigate the same subject matter applying the same story by merely changing the title.
Haco Far East Pte Ltd v Ong Heh Lai Francis	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 315	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the same party cannot re-litigate the same subject matter applying the same story by merely changing the title.
Thrasyvoulou v Secretary of State for the Environment	House of Lords	Yes	[1990] 2 AC 273	United Kingdom	Cited for the doctrine of res judicata rests on the twin principles which cannot be better expressed than in terms of the two Latin maxims 'interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium' and 'nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa.'
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	(1842) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313	N/A	Cited for the doctrine of abuse of process of court.
Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd	Privy Council	Yes	[1975] AC 581	Hong Kong	Cited for the doctrine of abuse of process of court.
Greenhalgh v Mallard	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1947] 2 All ER 255	England and Wales	Cited for the doctrine of abuse of process of court.
Ashmore v British Coal Corporation	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 2 QB 338	England and Wales	Cited for the doctrine of abuse of process of court.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police	House of Lords	Yes	[1982] AC 529	United Kingdom	Cited for the doctrine of abuse of process of court.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	United Kingdom	Cited for the doctrine of abuse of process of court.
Nanang International Sdn Bhd v The China Press Bhd	Malaysian High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 MLJ 681	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the court will not allow the same issue to be raised in separate proceedings arising out of identical facts and dependent on the same evidence, even if such proceedings are between different parties as to do so would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 644	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will not allow the same issue to be raised in separate proceedings arising out of identical facts and dependent on the same evidence, even if such proceedings are between different parties as to do so would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
Brisbane City Council and Myer Shopping Centres Pty Ltd v Attorney-General for Queensland	Privy Council	Yes	[1979] AC 411	Australia	Cited for the principle that there is no danger of a party being shut out from bringing forward a genuine subject of litigation.
The Rev Oswald Joseph Reichel, Clerk (Pauper) v The Rev John Richard Magrath, Provost of Queen’s College, Oxford University	House of Lords	Yes	(1889) 14 App Cas 665	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that there is no danger of a party being shut out from bringing forward a genuine subject of litigation.
Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 517	Singapore	Cited for the principle of privity of interest.
Abdul Majid bin Hj Nazardin v Paari Perumal	Malaysian Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 2 MLJ 640	Malaysia	Cited as distinguishable from the present proceedings.
Christie v Christie	N/A	Yes	(1872–1873) LR 8 Ch App 499	N/A	Cited for the principle of determining whether the third set of paragraphs was 'scandalous'.
Pertamina v Kartika Ratna Thahir	High Court	Yes	[1982–1983] SLR 351	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is not proper to use the names of third parties in public proceedings, particularly when they are public officers or well-known and influential persons without scrupulously observing the rules of pleading and justifying the relevance of references to such persons.
Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 3 SLR 357	Singapore	Cited for the principle that this court had no jurisdiction to extend the time in the context of the present proceedings in favour of the appellant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 3 r 4 Rules of Court
Order 57 r 17 Rules of Court
Order 4 r 1(1) Rules of Court
Order 56 r 2 Rules of Court
Order 57 r 4 Rules of Court
Order 3 r 4 read with Order 57 r 17 Rules of Court
Order 57 r 3(3) Rules of Court
Order 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Section 34(1)(c) Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Consolidation of appeals
Extension of time
Security for costs
Interlocutory order
Res judicata
Abuse of process
Financial hardship
Striking out
Public law action
Employment action
Bankruptcy action

15.2 Keywords

Civil procedure
Appeal
Consolidation
Time extension
Singapore
Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	90
Appellate Practice	80
Civil Practice	75
Res Judicata	60
Abuse of Process	50
Administrative Law	30
Costs	30
Breach of Contract	25
Jurisdiction	20
Contract Law	20
Estoppel	15

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Appeals
Consolidation
Time Extension
Procedural Law