Tan Heng Khoon v Wang Shing He: Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal
Tan Heng Khoon, trading as 360 VR Cars, applied for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal against the District Court's decision in DC/RA 4/2024. The respondent, Wang Shing He, objected. The High Court allowed the application, directing the applicant to file and serve the Notice of Appeal by 11 September 2024. The court considered the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of success on appeal, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal was allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The applicant sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The court allowed the application, finding the delay short and the reasons for the delay valid.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Heng Khoon | Applicant | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Wang Shing He | Respondent | Individual | Application Denied | Lost | Fan Kin Ning |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Fan Kin Ning | Tan Kim Seng & Partners |
4. Facts
- The applicant sought an extension of time to file and serve the Notice of Appeal against the decision of the District Court.
- The respondent objected to the application.
- The applicant was the appellant in RA 4 below.
- The respondent obtained a regular default judgment against the applicant on 5 May 2023 in the District Court.
- The applicant failed to file a Notice of Intention to Contest or Not Contest by the applicable deadline.
- The Judgment ordered that the applicant pay to the respondent $175,000.00, plus interest on the same, with costs awarded to the respondent.
- The applicant filed a correct Notice of Appeal for RA 4 on 30 May 2024, but it was rejected for being filed out of time.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Heng Khoon (trading as 360 VR Cars)vWang Shing He, Originating Application No 596 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 243
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondent obtained a regular default judgment against the applicant in the District Court. | |
| Applicant filed application to set aside the Judgment. | |
| Deputy Registrar allowed the applicant’s application to set aside the Judgment, subject to conditions. | |
| Applicant filed an appeal against the Deputy Registrar’s decision. | |
| District Judge heard the appeal and dismissed it. | |
| Applicant attempted to file a Notice of Appeal against RA 4. | |
| Original Notice of Appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court Service Bureau. | |
| Applicant filed a correct Notice of Appeal for RA 4. | |
| New Notice of Appeal was rejected for being filed out of time. | |
| Court allowed the application for an extension of time. | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Extension of time to file and serve notice of appeal
- Outcome: The court allowed the application for an extension of time.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565
- [2011] 2 SLR 196
8. Remedies Sought
- Extension of time to file and serve notice of appeal
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 four factors to consider when granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Cited for the four factors to consider when granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 196 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to consider when granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. |
| Newspaper Seng Logistics Pte Ltd v Chiap Seng Productions Pte Ltd | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC(A) 5 | Singapore | Cited regarding the low threshold for the chances of success in the would-be appeal. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd and another v Fraser & Neave Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 355 | Singapore | Cited regarding prejudice to the would-be respondent. |
| AD v AE | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 505 | Singapore | Cited regarding prejudice to the would-be respondent. |
| Falmac Ltd v Cheng Ji Lai Charlie and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 202 | Singapore | Cited regarding the focus on the length of the delay and the reasons for the delay. |
| Bloomberry Resorts and Hotels Inc and another v Global Gaming Philippines LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 725 | Singapore | Cited regarding the focus on the length of the delay and the reasons for the delay. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2911 v Tham Keng Mun and others | Unknown | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 1263 | Singapore | Cited regarding the length of the delay. |
| Tan Chiang Brother’s Marble (S) Pte Ltd v Permasteelisa Pacific Holdings Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited regarding the length of the delay. |
| Lu Shun v Public Prosecutor | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 74 | Singapore | Cited regarding affording some leeway to a self-represented party. |
| Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 482 | Singapore | Cited regarding a similar reason for delay. |
| Pearson Judith Rosemary v Chen Chien Wen Edwin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 2 SLR(R) 260 | Singapore | Cited regarding the chances of the appeal succeeding. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 3 | Singapore | Cited regarding the prejudice caused by the appellate process itself. |
| S3 Building Services Pte Ltd v Sky Technology Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 87 | Singapore | Cited regarding prejudice to the would-be respondent. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 18 rule 17(2) Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Order 18 rule 17(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Order 3 rule 3(7) of the ROC 2021 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Extension of time
- Notice of appeal
- Rules of Court 2021
- Default judgment
- Service Bureau
- Deputy Registrar
- District Judge
15.2 Keywords
- Extension of time
- Notice of appeal
- Civil procedure
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Extension of Time