Grassland Express v Priyatharsini: Striking Out Appeal for Untimely Filing

The Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by M Priyatharsini and others (Customers) to strike out the Notice of Appeal filed by Grassland Express & Tours Pte Ltd and another (Companies) against the High Court's decision in Suit No 1044 of 2018 and Suit No 1307 of 2018. The Customers sought to strike out the appeal because it was filed out of time and without permission. The court allowed the application and struck out the appeal, clarifying the rules regarding the timeline for filing appeals under the Rules of Court 2021.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal struck out due to late filing. The court clarified the timeline for appealing judgments, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Grassland Express & Tours Pte LtdAppellant, Respondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal struck outLost
Grassland Express Pte LtdAppellant, Respondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal struck outLost
M PriyatharsiniRespondent, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowedWon
R ManokaranRespondent, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowedWon
Muniandy BarvathiRespondent, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowedWon
Navindran s/o ManokaranRespondent, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowedWon
Xie Lianzhu @ Ye LianzhuRespondent, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowedWon
Wee Chye HeeRespondent, Applicant, PlaintiffIndividualApplication allowedWon
Chuah Ah LengDefendantIndividual
Zenwan (M) Sdn BhdDefendantCorporation
MMIP Services Sdn BhdOtherCorporation

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Kannan RameshJudge of the High CourtNo
Hoo Sheau PengJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ranita YogeeswaranK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Palaniappan SundararajK&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Pillai SubbiahTan & Pillai

4. Facts

  1. The Customers were holiday makers travelling from Genting Highlands back to Singapore on 31 August 2016.
  2. The Customers were on board a double decker luxury coach.
  3. The Bus was involved in a road accident en route to Singapore.
  4. The Customers sustained injuries and filed an action to claim damages.
  5. The Companies were found to have undertaken to transport the Customers from Singapore to Genting Highlands and back.
  6. The Judge gave interlocutory judgment on liability in favor of the Customers on 24 February 2022.
  7. The Companies filed NA 39 on 12 April 2022 before the Appellate Division of the High Court.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Grassland Express & Tours Pte Ltd and another v M Priyatharsini and others, Civil Appeal No 39 of 2022 (Summons No 15 of 2022), [2022] SGHC(A) 28

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Bus accident occurred involving the Customers.
Suits No 1044 and 1307 of 2018 were filed.
Interlocutory judgment on liability was given in favor of the Customers.
Parties were directed to file submissions on costs.
The Companies filed their submissions on costs.
The Customers filed their submissions on costs.
The Judge made orders on costs and disbursements against the Companies.
The Judge directed parties to write in with any objections to the costs orders.
Counsel for the Companies first attempted to file an appeal.
The Companies filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeal.
An urgent case management conference was convened.
Case management conference was refixed and held.
The Companies filed NA 39 before the Appellate Division of the High Court.
The respondents in CA 39 filed the present AD/SUM 15/2022 to strike out NA 39.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Striking out
    • Outcome: The court allowed the application to strike out the appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Filing of Appeals
    • Outcome: The court clarified the timeline for filing appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural rules.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Appellate Practice

11. Industries

  • Tourism
  • Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
R Manokaran and others v Chuah Ah Leng and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 39SingaporeRefers to the Main Judgment where interlocutory judgment on liability was given in favour of the Customers.
Ser Kim Koi v GTMS Construction Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 1319SingaporeCited for guidance on filing a single notice of appeal in respect of both judgments against liability and costs.
The “Luna” and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1054SingaporeCited to confirm that the correct procedure is to file a single notice of appeal against both the substantive decision and the costs decision.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021
Order 19 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 1 r 2 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 19 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 56A r 6(d) of the Revoked ROC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Notice of Appeal
  • Striking out
  • Interlocutory judgment
  • Costs orders
  • Rules of Court 2021
  • Extension of time

15.2 Keywords

  • Appeal
  • Striking out
  • Civil Procedure
  • Rules of Court
  • Singapore
  • Transportation
  • Negligence
  • Breach of Contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure90
Appellate Practice70
Civil Litigation60
Breach of Contract30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Transportation Law