Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai: Extension of Time for Appeal Legal Issue
In Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Anwar Siraj for an extension of time to request further arguments regarding a prior decision. The plaintiff, Ting Kang Chung John, an architect, sought outstanding fees for arbitration services. The court dismissed Siraj's application, finding his appeal lacked merit and that he failed to justify the extension of time, despite his ignorance of procedural rules.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Prayer (i) of Summons 855/08 dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Architect Ting Kang Chung John sought fees from Teo Hee Lai Building Construction. Anwar Siraj's appeal for more time to appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anwar Siraj | Defendant, Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Neutral | |
| Khoo Cheng Neo Norma | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Neutral | |
| Ting Kang Chung John | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Ting, an architect, was appointed to conduct arbitration between THL and Mr. Siraj and Mdm. Khoo.
- Mr. Ting commenced action for outstanding fees of $199,178.40.
- Mr. Siraj sought an extension of time to request further arguments regarding a decision made on 17 January 2008.
- Mr. Siraj was unaware of s 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, requiring application for further arguments within seven days.
- Mr. Siraj filed Summons 855/08 seeking an extension of time to request further arguments.
- The court considered the length of delay, reasons for delay, merits of the appeal, and prejudice to the other side.
- The court found Mr. Siraj's appeal to be without merit and dismissed the application.
5. Formal Citations
- Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd and Others, OS 1807/2006, SUM 855/2008, [2008] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitration proceedings commenced | |
| Arbitration proceedings concluded | |
| Mr Ting sought an extension of time to issue the arbitral award | |
| Originating Summons No 1807 of 2006 commenced | |
| Mr Siraj’s Notice to Produce Documents for Inspection was issued | |
| AR Lee made an order pursuant to Mr Siraj’s application | |
| Inspection of documents at Mr Ting’s counsel’s office | |
| Mr Siraj filed Summons No 4906 of 2007 and an affidavit | |
| AR Chung heard Summons No 4906 of 2007 | |
| AR Chung made an order for inspection of certain documents | |
| Summons 5635/07 and Summons 5581/07 came up for hearing before Assistant Registrar Teo Guan Siew | |
| RA 400/07 was heard by Woo Bih Li J | |
| Justice Tay Yong Kwang dismissed RA 16/08 and RA 17/08 | |
| Mr Siraj attended at the Registry to enquire about the procedure for filing an appeal to the Court of Appeal | |
| Mr Siraj made payment of $20,000 as security for costs of two appeals | |
| The main action was adjourned | |
| CA 15 of 2008 was first filed by Mr Siraj | |
| CA 15 of 2008 released to Mr Siraj | |
| CA 21 of 2008 was filed and released to Mr Siraj | |
| Mr Ting’s solicitors wrote to Mr Siraj about s 34(1)(c) | |
| Mr Siraj filed Summons 855/08 | |
| Justice Tay certified that he did not wish to hear further arguments | |
| Parties appeared before Justice Lai Siu Chiu on another related matter | |
| Summons 855/08 came up for hearing before Woo Bih Li J | |
| Written request dated 28 May 2008 for further arguments on Summons 855/08 from Mr Siraj | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to Request Further Arguments
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 3 SLR 357
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of Time
- Monetary Compensation
9. Cause of Actions
- Recovery of Fees
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to be taken into account for an omission to seek further arguments as are applicable to a failure to file a Notice of Appeal on time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 3 rule 2(5) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Further arguments
- Interlocutory order
- Arbitration
- Outstanding fees
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Merits of appeal
- Prejudice
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of time
- Appeal
- Arbitration
- Civil procedure
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Arbitration | 60 |
| Extension of Time | 40 |
| Evidence Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Arbitration