Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd: Striking Out Claim Appeal
Werner Samuel Vuillemin applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to appeal against the decision to strike out his claim against Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (OCBC) regarding a dispute over a safe deposit box. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed the originating summons, finding no merit in the application and upholding the decision to strike out the claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal for leave to appeal striking out of claim relating to safe deposit box dispute. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Successful Defence | Won | |
| Werner Samuel Vuillemin | Applicant | Individual | Originating Summons Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Leong Hao | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- The applicant hired a safe deposit box from the respondent in February 1999.
- In June 2007, the safe deposit box was opened by the respondent in preparation for relocation.
- The applicant was notified beforehand but did not respond.
- Disagreements arose from 2009 onwards over the signing of release forms.
- The respondent proposed an alternative open offer since November 2009.
- The applicant commenced his claim in the District Court on 7 October 2013.
- The applicant had not set down the matter for trial nearly five years after October 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd, Originating Summons No 242 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 88
- Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited, , [2018] SGDC 309
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicant hired a safe deposit box from the respondent. | |
| Safe deposit box was opened by the respondent. | |
| Respondent proposed an alternative open offer. | |
| Applicant commenced his claim in the District Court. | |
| Respondent informed the applicant that they would apply for the claim to be struck out. | |
| Respondent informed the applicant that they would apply for the claim to be struck out. | |
| Striking out application was filed. | |
| Deputy Registrar ruled in favour of the respondent. | |
| Applicant’s appeal against the District Judge’s decision was dismissed. | |
| Originating Summons was filed. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Decision date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking out claim
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Leave to appeal
- Outcome: The court did not grant leave to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Limitation period
- Outcome: The court accepted the respondent’s argument that the action was time-barred.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 92 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that any indulgence on account of the applicant being unrepresented should not be expected as a matter of entitlement. |
| BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] SGCA(I) 7 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that any indulgence on account of the applicant being unrepresented should not be expected as a matter of entitlement. |
| Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited | High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 501 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the applicant had commenced the action prematurely, before collecting the contents of the safe deposit box and ascertaining whether he had in fact suffered any loss. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited as a leading authority setting out the principles for leave to appeal. |
| IW v IX | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Cited as a leading authority setting out the principles for leave to appeal. |
| Qroi Limited v Pascoe, Ian | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 36 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant to support his argument that his case ought not to have been struck out. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 r 19 ROC |
| O 56 r 3 ROC |
| O 92 r 5 ROC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Safe deposit box
- Striking out
- Leave to appeal
- Limitation period
- Abuse of process
15.2 Keywords
- safe deposit box
- striking out
- appeal
- OCBC
- Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Appeal | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Summary Judgment | 30 |
| Procedural Law | 20 |
| Law of Pleadings | 20 |
| Litigant-in-person | 20 |
| Judgments and Orders | 20 |
| Breach of Court Order | 20 |
| Discharge of Counsel | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Banking Law