Lim Chi Szu Margaret v Risis Pte Ltd: Extension of Time for Appeal in Interlocutory Judgment
In Lim Chi Szu Margaret and Another v Risis Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiffs' application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed. The court, presided over by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC, dismissed the application, finding no merit for an extension of time based on the facts presented and established legal principles. The court also considered the interpretation of Section 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered an application for extension of time to appeal an interlocutory judgment. The court dismissed the application, finding no merit for extension.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Chi Szu Margaret | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Soh Leng Hui | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Risis Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application to Strike Out Granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohd Sadique Bin Ibrahim Marican | Sadique Marican and Z M Amin |
| Tan Tian Luh | Tan and Tan Partnership |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed.
- The application for leave to appeal was filed out of time.
- Plaintiffs applied for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal.
- The defendant sought to strike out the application for leave to appeal due to non-compliance with s 34(1)(c) of the Act or O 56 r 3 of the Rules of Court.
- The plaintiffs had already appealed to the District Court and the High Court unsuccessfully.
- Counsel for both parties assumed the proceedings were interlocutory in nature.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Chi Szu Margaret and Another v Risis Pte Ltd, OS 521/2005, SIC 2448/2005, 2504/2005, [2005] SGHC 206
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to File Application for Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that there was no reason to grant an extension of time on the facts before it.
- Category: Procedural
- Interlocutory vs Final Order
- Outcome: The court considered whether the order was interlocutory or final, ultimately suggesting it was possibly final but proceeding on the assumption it was interlocutory due to the arguments presented.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1903] 1 KB 547
- Compliance with Section 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had not complied with s 34(1)(c) of the Act, rejecting the argument that compliance was unnecessary.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 3 SLR 545
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file application for leave to appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Appellate Practice
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England and Wales | Cited for the test to distinguish between interlocutory and final orders, focusing on whether the order finally disposes of the rights of the parties. |
| Salaman v Warner | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England and Wales | Cited as an alternative test for distinguishing between interlocutory and final orders, but the court preferred the test in Bozson. |
| Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 438 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the test in Bozson is clearly the law in Singapore. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the test in Bozson is clearly the law in Singapore. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the test in Bozson is clearly the law in Singapore. |
| Jumabhoy Asad v Aw Cheok Huat Mick | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 99 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the test in Bozson is clearly the law in Singapore. |
| Lim Kok Koon v Tan JinHwee Eunice & Lim ChooEng | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 322 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the test in Bozson is clearly the law in Singapore. |
| Tee Than Song Construction Co Ltd v Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant | Federal Court | Yes | [1965–1968] SLR 230 | Singapore | Cited as an example where the test in Bozson is clearly the law in Singapore. |
| White v Brunton | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984] 1 QB 570 | England and Wales | Cited in reference to Bozson itself related to a situation where in an action brought to recover damages for breach of contract. |
| Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 151 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if Section 34(1)(c) must be complied with and is not in fact complied with, no appeal can then be brought. |
| Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 787 | Singapore | Affirmed by Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR 151. |
| Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd v Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (No 2) | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 978 | Singapore | Reversed by Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR 151. |
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if Section 34(1)(c) must be complied with and is not in fact complied with, no appeal can then be brought. |
| Seabridge Transport Pte Ltd v Olivine Electronics Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 545 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'subject to any other provision in this section' in s 34(1)(c) of the Act. |
| JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [1988] SGHC 103 | Singapore | Cited for the intent of Section 34(2) [the predecessor of the present s 34(1)]. |
| Thomson Plaza Pte Ltd v The Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Pte Ltd | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 248 | Singapore | Cited JH Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v Teck Hock & Co (Pte) Ltd [1988] SGHC 103. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the reasons before leave to appeal is granted pursuant to s 34(2). |
| IW v IX | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 48 | Singapore | Cited Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong [1997] 3 SLR 489. |
| Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 4 All ER 840 | England and Wales | Cited Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong [1997] 3 SLR 489, where the more liberal approach adopted in the English Court of Appeal decision of Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd [1997] 4 All ER 840 compared to guideline (1) below was not followed. |
| Seow Teck Ming v Tan Ah Yeo | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] SLR 169 | Singapore | Cited for the prior position provided for certification of a judge in chambers that no further argument is required and the obtaining of leave from the Court of Appeal or from the judge who heard the application as alternative routes of appeal to the Court of Appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 56 r 3 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| O 56 r 2 Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interlocutory judgment
- Extension of time
- Leave to appeal
- Section 34(1)(c)
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Rules of Court
- Certification
- Further argument
15.2 Keywords
- Civil procedure
- Appeal
- Interlocutory order
- Extension of time
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Interlocutory Orders
- Extension of Time