AXF v Koh Cheng Huat: Dependency Claims, Time-Bar under Civil Law Act
In AXF, AXG, and AXH v Dr Koh Cheng Huat and Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard an appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim. The plaintiffs, the husband and children of the deceased, alleged negligence by the defendants, Dr Koh Cheng Huat and Thomson Medical Pte Ltd, in connection with the deceased's death during childbirth. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the dependency claims were time-barred under Section 20(5) of the Civil Law Act, which imposes an absolute three-year limitation period.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that dependency claims under the Civil Law Act are subject to an absolute three-year time-bar.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AXF | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kuah Boon Theng, Alicia Zhuang |
| AXG | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kuah Boon Theng, Alicia Zhuang |
| AXH | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kuah Boon Theng, Alicia Zhuang |
| Koh Cheng Huat | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Lek Siang Pheng, Vanessa Lim, Ang Yi Rong, Audrey Sim |
| Thomson Medical Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Audrey Chiang, Lim Xiu Zhen, Vanessa Tok |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Foo Chee Hock | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kuah Boon Theng | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Alicia Zhuang | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Lek Siang Pheng | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Vanessa Lim | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Ang Yi Rong | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Audrey Sim | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Audrey Chiang | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Lim Xiu Zhen | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Vanessa Tok | Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are the husband and children of the deceased, who died following childbirth.
- The plaintiffs allege negligence by the obstetrician and medical center in connection with the deceased's death.
- The suit was commenced more than three years after the deceased's death.
- The 1st Defendant notified the 1st Plaintiff in a letter dated 17 December 2007 that Dr Yvonne Chan was present during the resuscitation of the Deceased.
- By 15 September 2010 the Plaintiffs were notified that Dr Yvonne Chan was not present and was not involved with the Deceased’s medical management.
- The Plaintiffs were only provided with the CTG Trace covering the period from about 12.05pm/12.10pm to 3.17pm on 18 September 2007.
- On 19 June 2014, the Plaintiffs received the CTG Trace for the morning of 18 September 2007.
5. Formal Citations
- AXF and others v Koh Cheng Huat and another, Suit No 15 of 2014 (Registrar's Appeal No 109 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 238
- , Civil Appeal No 123 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deceased passed away following the birth of the 2nd Plaintiff | |
| 1st Defendant notified the 1st Plaintiff in a letter that Dr Yvonne Chan was present during the resuscitation of the Deceased | |
| Plaintiffs were notified that Dr Yvonne Chan was not present and was not involved with the Deceased’s medical management | |
| Suit commenced | |
| Statement of Claim dated | |
| Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1) dated | |
| AR's decision ordering portions of the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1) dated 17 October 2014 to be struck out | |
| Decision on Registrar’s Appeal No 109 of 2015 | |
| Decision Date | |
| Appeal to this decision in Civil Appeal No 123 of 2015 was allowed by the Court of Appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Time-Bar for Dependency Claims
- Outcome: The court held that the time-bar in s 20(5) of the Civil Law Act is absolute and mandatory, with no power to extend time or make exceptions.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1965] 31 MLJ 252
- [2004] 1 MLJ 670
- [2011] 3 CLJ 751
- [1953] 1 QB 688
- Unconscionable Reliance on Time-Bar
- Outcome: The court rejected the Plaintiffs' argument that the Defendants' reliance on the time-bar was unconscionable, finding the cited case law inapplicable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- (1988) 164 CLR 539
- [2014] SGHC 41
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Medical Malpractice
11. Industries
- Healthcare
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuan Hip Peng v Yap Yin & Anor | Federal Court | Yes | [1965] 31 MLJ 252 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that s 7(5) of the Civil Law Ordinance 1956 (Malaysia) is absolute and contains no exceptions regarding the time-bar for dependency claims. |
| Lee Cheng Yee (suing as administrator of the estate of Chia Miew Hien) v Tiu Soon Siang t/a Tiyor Soon Tiok & Sons Company & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 1 MLJ 670 | Malaysia | Cited to support the view that s 7(5) of the Malaysian Civil Law Act is absolute in nature and without exception. |
| Tasja Sdn Bhd v Golden Approach Sdn Bhd | Federal Court | Yes | [2011] 3 CLJ 751 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that under O. 18 r. 19(1) RHC, if limitation is absolute under s. 7(5) of the Civil Law Act, a striking out application should be granted without needing to plead the defence. |
| Finnegan v Cementation Co Ld | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1953] 1 QB 688 | United Kingdom | Cited to illustrate the strict approach taken to limitation periods, even in cases of hardship, under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (UK). |
| Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1946] KB 65 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the Statute of Limitations is not concerned with merits and a defendant is entitled to insist on their strict rights once the limitation period has expired. |
| Hawkins v Clayton | High Court | Yes | (1988) 164 CLR 539 | Australia | Cited by the Plaintiffs for the concept of unconscionable reliance on time-bar, but the court found the reliance misplaced. |
| Muhamad Solleh bin Saarani & Anor v Norruhadi bin Omar & Ors | N/A | Yes | [2010] 9 MLJ 603 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a statutorily prescribed period of limitation has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed on the ground of equitable consideration. |
| Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 41 | Singapore | Cited by the Plaintiffs to show that Singapore courts have applied the concept of unconscionable reliance on time-bar, but the court found that it did not advance the Plaintiffs’ position. |
| Applegate v Moss | N/A | Yes | [1971] 1 QB 406 | N/A | Cited in Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan and another [2014] SGHC 41 at [112] for the principle that the section applies whenever the conduct of the defendant or his agent has been such as to hide from the plaintiff the existence of his right of action, in such circumstances that it would be inequitable to allow the defendant to rely on the lapse of time as a bar to the claim. |
| Bartlett and Others v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 Ch 515 | N/A | Cited in Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan and another [2014] SGHC 41 at [112] for the principle that “Fraud” in the context of s 22(1)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) (“the LA”), does not mean the common law fraud or deceit but it denotes conduct by the defendant that would be against conscience for him to avail himself of the lapse of time. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 20(5) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1999 Rev Ed) s 24A(2) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 22(1)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Dependency Claims
- Time-Bar
- Limitation Period
- Unconscionable Reliance
- CTG Trace
15.2 Keywords
- dependency claims
- time-bar
- limitation
- negligence
- medical
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Limitation of Actions
- Medical Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Law
- Limitation Law
- Medical Negligence