Pharma Inc v Limb Salvage: Extension of Time to Appeal Refused

Pharma Inc (Wordwide) Pte Ltd applied for an extension of time to appeal against a decision by the District Judge in favor of Limb Salvage and Revision Arthroplasty Surgery Pte Ltd. The High Court dismissed the application, citing insufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and the hopelessness of the appeal itself. The court found that Pharma Inc failed to provide adequate justification for the delay and that the evidence contradicted their claim of a varied agreement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for extension of time to appeal a judgment was dismissed due to insufficient reasons for delay and a hopeless appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pharma Inc (Wordwide) Pte LtdAppellantCorporationApplication dismissedLost
Limb Salvage and Revision Arthroplasty Surgery Pte LtdRespondentCorporationApplication grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hri Kumar NairJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
James Joseph s/o J JosephPrestige Legal LLP
Yap Neng Boo JimmyJimmy Yap & Co

4. Facts

  1. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a District Judge's decision.
  2. The initial attempt to file the appeal was rejected due to insufficient security.
  3. The applicant mistakenly filed the initial extension application in the State Courts.
  4. The applicant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal.
  5. The applicant's director was aware of the appeal deadline.
  6. The applicant did not make closing submissions at the trial below.
  7. The respondent claimed against the applicant to recover a sum of $160,500.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pharma Inc (Wordwide) Pte LtdvLimb Salvage and Revision Arthroplasty Surgery Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 831 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 31

6. Timeline

DateEvent
District Judge awarded judgment and costs against the applicant and dismissed the applicant’s counterclaim.
Deadline for filing the appeal expired.
Applicant tried to file its notice of appeal but it was rejected.
Applicant tried to file its notice of appeal with the requisite security but it was again rejected.
Applicant filed an application in the State Courts for leave to appeal out of time.
Applicant was alerted to the error of applying for an extension of time in the State Courts.
Applicant filed this application.
Applicant issued an invoice.
Board meeting between the parties’ representatives.
Parties agreed that they would proceed with the purchase and delivery of one CTU-18 machine.
Meeting between parties.
Respondent treated the applicant’s conduct as a repudiatory breach and cancelled the Agreement.
Health Sciences Authority approval obtained.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to Appeal
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasons for delay
      • Prospects of success on appeal
      • Prejudice to the respondent

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extension of time to file notice of appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Pharmaceuticals

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hau Khee Wee and another v Chua Kian Tong and anotherunknownYes[1985-1986] SLR(R) 1075SingaporeCited for the factors to consider when allowing an extension of time to appeal.
Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen EdwinunknownYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 260SingaporeCited for the factors to consider when allowing an extension of time to appeal.
Tjo Kwe In v Chia Song KwanunknownYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 560SingaporeCited for the legal position that application for extension of time should be filed in the High Court.
ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appealunknownYes[2019] 1 SLR 499SingaporeCited for the test of whether the appeal is hopeless.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
O 55D r 14 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extension of time
  • Notice of appeal
  • Security for appeal
  • Repudiatory breach
  • Variation of agreement
  • Hopeless appeal

15.2 Keywords

  • Extension of time
  • Appeal
  • Civil procedure
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Extension of Time80
Civil Procedure75
Appellate Practice60
Breach of Contract50
Contract Law50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals