Bin Hee Heng v Ho Siew Lan: Extension of Time for Appeal & Judicial Review of Court of Appeal Decision

Bin Hee Heng appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the High Court's decision, which had dismissed his application for judicial review of a prior Court of Appeal decision. The High Court had ruled it lacked jurisdiction to re-hear the first appeal. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JA, and Woo Bih Li J, dismissed Bin Hee Heng's application for an extension of time to file necessary documents for his appeal, finding no merit in his attempt to judicially review a prior Court of Appeal ruling. The court ordered Bin Hee Heng to pay costs to Ho Siew Lan.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed Bin Hee Heng's application for an extension of time to appeal a High Court decision, finding no merit in his attempt to judicially review a prior Court of Appeal ruling.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Bin Hee HengAppellant, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Ho Siew Lan (acting as Executrix and Trustee in the Estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin)Respondent, DefendantTrustCosts awardedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeNo
Steven ChongJudge of AppealNo
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Goh Kok YeowDe Souza Lim & Goh LLP
Lim Huiling NaomiDe Souza Lim & Goh LLP

4. Facts

  1. Bin Hee Heng sought judicial review of a Court of Appeal decision.
  2. Heng's appeal was deemed withdrawn for failure to file required documents on time.
  3. Heng applied for an extension of time to file appeal documents.
  4. The High Court initially struck out portions of Heng's Statement of Claim.
  5. Heng alleged the Court of Appeal breached his constitutional rights.
  6. Heng was ordered to file a correctly amended SOC by 28 November 2018, but did not do so.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Bin Hee Heng v Ho Siew Lan (acting as executrix and trustee in the estate of Gillian Ho Siu Ngin), , [2020] SGCA 04

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Gillian Ho Siu Ngin executed a last Will and Testament
Gillian Ho Siu Ngin passed away
Grant of Probate was issued
Bin Hee Heng filed an action in the Family Division of the High Court
Bin Hee Heng filed his Statement of Claim
Ho Siew Lan filed an application to strike out portions of the Statement of Claim
Application to strike out portions of the Statement of Claim was heard by Assistant Registrar Jonathan Lee Zhong Wei
Assistant Registrar Lee ordered that various portions of the Statement of Claim be struck out
Bin Hee Heng filed an appeal against Assistant Registrar Lee’s decision
Bin Hee Heng’s appeal was heard by JC Foo Tuat Yien, who dismissed it
Court of Appeal dismissed Bin Hee Heng’s appeal and gave directions for him to re-file his Statement of Claim
Assistant Registrar allowed Ho Siew Lan's application to correct the extracted Order of Court and directed Bin Hee Heng to file a correctly amended Statement of Claim by 28 November 2018
Bin Hee Heng filed a second action in the High Court by way of OS 1496 of 2018, seeking a judicial review of the Court of Appeal’s decision
Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the second action
Bin Hee Heng filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Choo J
Registrar of the Supreme Court notified the parties that the Record of Proceedings was available
Bin Hee Heng filed his appellant’s case
Bin Hee Heng attempted to file some documents but the documents were rejected as his appeal had been deemed withdrawn
Assistant Registrar conducted a case management conference and informed the parties that Bin Hee Heng’s appeal had been deemed withdrawn
Notice of Deemed Withdrawal of Appeal was issued by the Registrar
Bin Hee Heng filed SUM 129 for an extension of time to file his record of appeal and core bundle
Court of Appeal dismissed SUM 129

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to file the record of appeal and core bundle.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Judicial Review of Court of Appeal Decision
    • Outcome: The court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction to order a new coram in the Court of Appeal to re-hear a prior appeal, and there is no basis for judicial review of a Court of Appeal decision.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Judicial Review
  2. Extension of Time

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Judicial Review

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of SingaporeSingapore
Section 16 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)Singapore
Section 29A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)Singapore
Order 57 Rule 5(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 57 Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 59 Rule 9(4) of the Rules of CourtSingapore
Section 34A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extension of time
  • Judicial review
  • Deemed withdrawal
  • Coram
  • Oath of office
  • Equal protection of the law

15.2 Keywords

  • Appeal
  • Extension of time
  • Judicial review
  • Court of Appeal
  • High Court
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Extension of Time90
Civil Practice75
Appellate Practice60
Jurisdiction50
Wills and Probate40
Succession Law40
Judicial Review30
Business Litigation20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Constitutional Law
  • Judicial Review