Lim Kok Boon v Lee Poh King Melissa: Appeal Timeline & Further Arguments in Divorce Proceedings
In Lim Kok Boon (Lin Guowen) v Lee Poh King Melissa, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the timeline for filing an appeal in the District Court. The appellant, Lim Kok Boon, argued that the time for appeal should run from the date the District Judge refused to hear further arguments, while the respondent, Lee Poh King Melissa, contended it should run from the date the original order was made. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the timeline for appeal in the Subordinate Courts runs from the date the order is made, irrespective of a request for further arguments.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding the start date for appeal timelines after a request for further arguments in divorce proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Kok Boon (Lin Guowen) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lee Poh King Melissa | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Arvind Daas Naaidu | Legal21 LLC |
| Tan Yew Cheng | Leong Partnership |
4. Facts
- DJ Wong Shen Kai made orders on ancillary matters on 18 October 2011.
- The Appellant's solicitors requested further arguments on 21 October 2011.
- DJ certified on 27 October 2011 that he required no further arguments.
- The Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on 8 November 2011.
- DJ Edgar Foo granted the striking out of the notice of appeal.
- The appeal concerns the interpretation of O 55C of the Rules of Court.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Kok Boon (Lin Guowen) v Lee Poh King Melissa, , [2012] SGHC 77
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| DJ Wong Shen Kai made orders on ancillary matters. | |
| Appellant's solicitors requested further arguments. | |
| DJ certified he required no further arguments. | |
| Appellant's notice of appeal was filed. | |
| DJ Edgar Foo granted the striking out of the notice of appeal. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Appeal Timeline
- Outcome: The court held that the timeline for appeal in the Subordinate Courts runs from the date the order is made, irrespective of a request for further arguments.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Start date for appeal timeline
- Request for further arguments
- Related Cases:
- [2003] 3 SLR(R) 99
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 246
- [1994] 3 SLR(R) 114
- [2001] 4 SLR 441
- [2004] 2 SLR 322
8. Remedies Sought
- Order that DJ Foo erred in law by holding that the appeal was filed out of time.
9. Cause of Actions
- Appeal against District Court's decision
10. Practice Areas
- Family Litigation
- Divorce
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jumabhoy Asad v Aw Cheok Huat Mick and others | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 99 | Singapore | Cited to explain the interpretation of the former s 34(1)(c) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act regarding appeals against interlocutory orders. |
| Thomson Plaza (Pte) Ltd v Liquidators of Yaohan Department Store Singapore Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 246 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that time for an appeal runs from the time the judge refuses to hear further arguments, but distinguished because the judge in this case did not agree to hear further arguments. |
| Singapore Press Holdings v Brown Noel Trading | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 114 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale behind the principle that time for an appeal runs from the time the judge refuses to hear further arguments, but distinguished because the judge in this case did not agree to hear further arguments. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia v Fraser & Neave | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of O 56 r 2(2) regarding the time period for allowing an appeal when no reply is given, but deemed inapplicable because O 55C is silent. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limits within which the court's discretion is to be exercised under O 92 r 4. |
| Lim Kok Koon v Tan Jin Hwee Eunice | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR 322 | Singapore | Cited to show that a request for further arguments does not operate as an automatic stay for filing of the appeal, and statutorily overruled by the new s 28B SCJA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 55C of the Rules of Court |
| O 55C r 1 |
| O 56 r 2 |
| O 56 r 4 |
| O 92 r 4 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap. 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
| Subordinate Courts Act (Cap.321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1985 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Appeal timeline
- Further arguments
- Interlocutory order
- Subordinate Courts
- High Court
- Rules of Court
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Practice Direction
- Ancillary matters
- Divorce proceedings
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Further Arguments
- Divorce
- Timeline
- Subordinate Courts
- High Court
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Family Law | 90 |
| Divorce | 90 |
| Matrimonial Assets | 80 |
| Division of Matrimonial Property | 80 |
| Appeal | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 50 |
| Costs | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Family Law
- Appeals
- Divorce