Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd: Appeal Extension & Security for Costs

In Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Werner Samuel Vuillemin's application for an extension of time to appeal against a District Court's Appeal Dismissal Order regarding security for costs. Vuillemin's substantive claim against the bank concerns the contents of his safe deposit box. The court found Vuillemin's reasons for delay unconvincing and saw little merit in his substantive action, leading to the dismissal of his application with costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application for an extension of time to appeal against the Appeal Dismissal Order dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Werner Samuel Vuillemin's application for an extension of time to appeal a security for costs order. The court found little merit in his substantive claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation LimitedDefendantCorporationSuccessful Resistance of ApplicationWon
Werner Samuel VuilleminPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ang Leong HaoRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Jansen ChowRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Adrian WongRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Werner Samuel Vuillemin is a customer of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited.
  2. Vuillemin filed District Court Suit No 3051 of 2013 against the Bank.
  3. Vuillemin claims an order for delivery of contents in his safe deposit box.
  4. The Bank applied for security for costs against Vuillemin.
  5. Vuillemin was ordered to provide $7,000 as security for the Bank’s costs.
  6. Vuillemin filed an appeal which was dismissed.
  7. Vuillemin filed the Present OS in the High Court for an extension of time to appeal against the Appeal Dismissal Order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd, HC/Originating Summons No 786 of 2016, [2016] SGHC 265

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Court Suit No 3051 filed by Werner Samuel Vuillemin against Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited.
Order made by a Deputy Registrar for Werner Samuel Vuillemin to provide $7,000 as security for the Bank’s costs.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin filed an appeal, District Court Registrar’s Appeal No 23 of 2016.
District Judge dismissed Werner Samuel Vuillemin's appeal.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin left Singapore.
Deadline for Werner Samuel Vuillemin to file an appeal from the Appeal Dismissal Order.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin returned to Singapore.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin’s appeal for an extension of time to provide the security was dismissed.
Default judgment was entered against Werner Samuel Vuillemin.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin's appeal was allowed, granting an extension of time till 22 July 2016 to provide the security.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin provided the security by paying $7,000 into court.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin attempted to file an application in the State Courts for an extension of time to appeal against the Appeal Dismissal Order. The application was rejected.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin filed Originating Summons No 786 of 2016 in the High Court for an extension of time to appeal against the Appeal Dismissal Order.
High Court heard Werner Samuel Vuillemin's application for an extension of time and dismissed it with costs.
Werner Samuel Vuillemin filed High Court Summons No 5188 of 2016 for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision.
High Court heard SUM 5188 and dismissed it with costs.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to Appeal
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
  2. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court considered the merits of the substantive action in relation to the security for costs order.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extension of time to appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the four factors to be considered when granting an extension of time.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862SingaporeCited for the factors for an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 55C r 1(4) of the Rules of Court
O 55D of the ROC on “appeals from State Courts”
r 14 of O 55D of the ROC on “appeals from State Courts”

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Extension of time
  • Appeal Dismissal Order
  • Safe deposit box

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • Extension of time
  • Appeal
  • Safe deposit box

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs85
Civil Practice75
Civil Procedure70
Appellate Practice60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Banking Law