Walker v Soh: Extension of Time for Appeal Application Regarding Dog's Death
In Walker Helen Debra v Soh Poh Geok, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Walker for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a Magistrate's Court decision regarding damages awarded for the death of her dog, Maximus, who was killed when struck by a car driven by Soh. The court considered whether the application for extension of time should have been filed in the Magistrate's Court or the High Court. The High Court ordered that the proceedings be transferred to the Magistrate’s Court for decision.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Proceedings transferred to the Magistrate’s Court for decision on the extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal and the applicant’s request to be granted leave to appeal.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed whether an extension of time to appeal a Magistrate's Court decision regarding damages for a dog's death should be filed in the Magistrate's Court or the High Court.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Walker Helen Debra | Applicant | Individual | Proceedings transferred to the Magistrate’s Court | Neutral | Lee Yuk Lan |
| Soh Poh Geok | Respondent | Individual | No order as to costs | Neutral | Anthony Wee, Pang Weng Fong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Yuk Lan | Benedict Chan & Company |
| Anthony Wee | United Legal Alliance LLC |
| Pang Weng Fong | United Legal Alliance LLC |
4. Facts
- The respondent's car hit two women and their dogs, Maximus and Ruby.
- Maximus, a 4-year-old Tibetan Mastiff, was killed in the accident.
- The applicant sued the respondent for damages for the death of Maximus.
- The District Judge awarded $2,430 for Maximus’s death.
- The applicant missed the deadline to file for leave to appeal due to grief over her husband’s death.
- The State Courts rejected the applicant's application for extension of time, stating it should be made to the High Court.
- The applicant filed an Originating Summons in the High Court seeking an extension of time and leave to appeal.
5. Formal Citations
- Walker, Helen Debra v Soh Poh Geok, Originating Summons No 175 of 2021, [2021] SGHC 113
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent's car hit two women and their dogs. | |
| Interlocutory judgment entered, respondent bore 90% liability for Maximus’s death and Ruby’s injuries. | |
| District Judge gave judgment. | |
| Deadline to file for leave to appeal to the Magistrate’s Court. | |
| Applicant’s counsel attempted to file the application for extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal in the Magistrate’s Court. | |
| Application rejected by the State Courts. | |
| Applicant’s counsel filed the present Originating Summons. | |
| Hearing before the High Court. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal
- Outcome: The High Court held that the application for extension of time should have been made to the Magistrate’s Court in the first instance and transferred the proceedings to the Magistrate's Court for decision.
- Category: Procedural
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The High Court held that the applicant must first seek and fail to obtain leave from the Magistrate’s Court before she can apply for leave from the General Division of the High Court.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal
- Leave to appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lioncity Construction Co Pte Ltd v JFC Builders Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court with jurisdiction to hear applications for extension of time to appeal. |
| Tan Soo Giem v Yeo Ching Chua | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 408 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Magistrate’s Court’s jurisdiction to extend the time to file for leave to appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| State Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Leave to appeal
- Magistrate’s Court
- General Division
- Rules of Court
- Tibetan Mastiff
- Market value
- Damages
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Extension of time
- Dog
- Damages
- Civil Procedure
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Extension of Time
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals