Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd: Extension of Time for Filing Affidavits

In Singapore, Singapore Telecommunications Limited sued Starhub Cable Vision Ltd for unauthorized tapping of fibres. After succeeding on liability, the Court of Appeal ordered damages to be assessed. Singapore Telecommunications repeatedly sought extensions of time to file affidavits of evidence-in-chief, leading to the current application. The High Court, per Kan Ting Chiu J, substantially rejected the application, ordering affidavits to be filed by June 30, 2007, and setting a schedule for seeking input from the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for extension of time substantially rejected; orders made for filing affidavits and seeking input from the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addresses Singapore Telecommunications' application for an extension of time to file affidavits in a damages assessment against Starhub.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Singapore Telecommunications LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication for extension of time substantially rejectedLost
Starhub Cable Vision Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Cable Vision Ltd)DefendantCorporationOrders made for filing affidavits and seeking input from IDAWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kan Ting ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Singapore Telecommunications Ltd sued Starhub Cable Vision Ltd for unauthorized tapping of fibres.
  2. The Court of Appeal ordered damages to be assessed.
  3. Singapore Telecommunications sought multiple extensions of time to file affidavits of evidence-in-chief.
  4. The defendant opposed the extensions, seeking timely assessment of damages.
  5. The court considered the involvement of the Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore (IDA).

5. Formal Citations

  1. Singapore Telecommunications Ltd v Starhub Cable Vision Ltd (formerly known as Singapore Cable Vision Ltd), Suit 634/2003, SUM 2745/2007, [2007] SGHC 118

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Court of Appeal ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages to be assessed.
Parties appeared before the Registrar for directions on the assessment of damages.
Plaintiff filed SUM 2173 of 2007 seeking an extension of time.
Affidavit filed by Mr Sean Patrick Slattery in support of SUM 2173 of 2007.
Plaintiff filed SUM 2437 of 2007 seeking a two-week extension.
Slattery filed another affidavit in support of SUM 2437 of 2007.
SUM 2437 of 2007 was heard.
Plaintiff filed SUM 2745 of 2007 seeking a final extension of time.
SUM 2745 of 2007 was heard; orders made for filing affidavits and seeking IDA input.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court substantially rejected the plaintiff's application for a further extension of time.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in filing affidavits
      • Sufficiency of reasons for extension

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extension of time
  • Affidavits of evidence-in-chief
  • Assessment of damages
  • Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore
  • IDA
  • Network leasing agreement
  • Tapping of fibres

15.2 Keywords

  • Extension of time
  • Affidavits
  • Damages assessment
  • Singapore Telecommunications
  • Starhub
  • IDA

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Telecommunications