Newspaper Seng Logistics v Chiap Seng Productions: Extension of Time for Appeal
Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd (“D”) applied for an extension of time to appeal against the High Court's decision in favor of Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd (“P”). The Appellate Division of the High Court, comprising Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD, considered the length and reasons for the delay, D’s chances of success on appeal, and any prejudice to P. The court granted D leave to file and serve its notice of appeal within 3 days, ordering D’s solicitors to submit on whether they should bear the application's costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application granted
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court considered Newspaper Seng Logistics' application for an extension of time to file an appeal, focusing on the delay's length, reasons, chances of success, and potential prejudice to Chiap Seng Productions. The application was ultimately granted.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application granted | Won | |
| Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application opposed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Debbie Ong Siew Ling | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Bee Li | Chevalier Law LLC |
| Wong Zhen Yang | Chevalier Law LLC |
| Loh Yik Ming Michael | Clifford Law LLP |
4. Facts
- Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd (“D”) sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
- The deadline to file and serve the notice of appeal was 19 September 2022.
- D attempted to file and serve the notice of appeal on 20 September 2022, one day late.
- D’s solicitor mistakenly believed the appeal was governed by the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed).
- The High Court found that the Service Agreement was in substance a tenancy agreement.
- The Judge allowed P’s claim against D for D’s intentional disposal of the Assets.
- The Judge dismissed the counterclaim as D had failed to mitigate its losses.
5. Formal Citations
- Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 15 of 2022, [2023] SGHC(A) 5
- Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd v Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd, , [2022] SGHC 202
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Service Agreement signed between P and D | |
| D seized all of the Assets which were stored within the Premises | |
| D sold the Assets for scrap to Yew Huat Scaffolding & Construction Pte Ltd | |
| ROC 2021 came into effect | |
| Decision of the General Division of the High Court | |
| Deadline for filing and serving notice of appeal | |
| D attempted to file and serve a notice of appeal | |
| D filed the present Originating Application | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
- Outcome: The court exercised its discretion to allow the applicant to file and serve its notice of appeal out of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Length of delay
- Reasons for delay
- Applicant’s chances of success on appeal
- Prejudice to the respondent
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
- Costs
- Outcome: The court directed D’s solicitors to write in with submissions on the question of whether they should be made to bear the costs of the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Incurring costs unreasonably in the proceedings
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 1 SLR 1134
- [1994] Ch 205
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- Intentional disposal of assets
10. Practice Areas
- Appellate Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Logistics
- Manufacturing
- Scaffolding
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd v Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 202 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's decision on the claim of the respondent, Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd (“P”), for D’s intentional disposal of P’s assets. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for the well-established principles pertaining to and underlying the appeal regime. |
| Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 336 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mere assertion that the delay is due to the oversight of the solicitor is insufficient. |
| Tan Hock Tee v C S Tan and Co | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 578 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that solicitors ought to know the time frame for appeals for it is the solicitor’s duty to ensure that the client’s appeal does not become nugatory. |
| Commodities Intelligence Centre Pte Ltd v Hoi Suen Logistics (HK) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 845 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the merits of the intended appeal are a neutral factor unless the appeal has no prospect of success. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 425 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the quest for justice entails a continuous need to balance the procedural with the substantive. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prejudice cannot possibly refer to the fact that the appeal would thereby be continued, if the extension is granted. |
| AD v AE | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 505 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that some form of irreversible or permanent change of position must have taken place to constitute prejudice. |
| Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 561 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the circumstances or “material” required to support an extension of time for the former situation should thus be “weightier or more compelling than that required for other applications”. |
| Dongah Geological Engineering Co Ltd v Jungwoo E&C Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 1134 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test for determining whether costs should be ordered against a solicitor personally. |
| Ridehalgh v Horsefield | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] Ch 205 | England and Wales | Cited for the three-step test for determining whether costs should be ordered against a solicitor personally. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 19 r 25(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 19 r 25 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 3 r 3(3) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 3 r 2(2) of the former ROC 2014 |
| O 21 r 6(1) of the ROC 2021 |
| O 21 r 6(2) of the ROC 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020 | Singapore |
| Distress Act (Cap 84, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Notice of appeal
- Rules of Court 2021
- Rules of Court 2014
- De minimis delay
- Overriding objective of finality
- Service agreement
- Tenancy agreement
- Distress Act
- COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of time
- Appeal
- Rules of Court
- Delay
- Prejudice
- Finality
- Service Agreement
- Tenancy Agreement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Extension of Time | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Costs | 60 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Litigation