Lee Hui Chin v Chubb Insurance: Extension of Time for Arbitration

In [2024] SGHC 69, the High Court of Singapore granted Mdm Lee Hui Chin's application against Chubb Insurance Singapore Limited to extend the time for commencing arbitration proceedings. The dispute arose from rejected Accidental Death Benefits claims under two insurance policies following the death of Mdm Lee's spouse. The court, presided over by Justice Chua Lee Ming, found that refusing the extension would cause undue hardship to the applicant, outweighing the deprivation of the respondent's contractual time bar.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Granted

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court granted Mdm Lee Hui Chin's application to extend time to commence arbitration against Chubb Insurance due to undue hardship.

1.7 Decision Date

13 March 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Hui Chin	Applicant	Individual	Application Granted	Won	Raj Singh Shergill of Lee Shergill LLP Chua Gek Yee of Lee Shergill LLP
Chubb Insurance Singapore Limited	Respondent	Corporation	Costs Awarded	Partial	Kevin Kwek Yiu Wing of Legal Solutions LLC Tan Yiting Gina of Legal Solutions LLC Sourish Sinha of Legal Solutions LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chua Lee Ming	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Raj Singh Shergill	Lee Shergill LLP
Chua Gek Yee	Lee Shergill LLP
Kevin Kwek Yiu Wing	Legal Solutions LLC
Tan Yiting Gina	Legal Solutions LLC
Sourish Sinha	Legal Solutions LLC

4. Facts

Applicant was the policyholder of two insurance policies with the respondent.
The policies provided for Accidental Death Benefits.
The insured person was the applicant’s spouse, who died after a bicycle accident.
The respondent rejected the applicant’s claims, stating the cause of death was sickness not covered under the policies.
Arbitration was commenced in the name of the Deceased's daughter, instead of the applicant.
The arbitrator dismissed the joinder application on the basis that only the applicant had the locus standi to commence arbitration proceedings against the respondent.
The applicant filed an application to extend the time for her to commence arbitration.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Hui Chin v Chubb Insurance Singapore Ltd, Originating Application No 902 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 69

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2021-04-02	Deceased fell while riding his bicycle
2021-04-09	Deceased removed from life support and passed away
2021-04-10	Death certificate issued
2021-04-10	Coroner issued a certificate stating that an inquiry was unnecessary
2021-04-20	Applicant submitted claims to the respondent
2021-05-27	Respondent obtained a report from NTFGH
2021-08-19	Respondent rejected the applicant’s claims
2022-07-07	Further medical report by Dr Ho obtained
2022-07-26	Letters of Administration granted to Ms Teng
2022-08-26	Estate’s solicitors wrote to the respondent enclosing a copy of Dr Ho’s report
2022-12-30	Respondent confirmed its previous position that the claims were not covered by the Policies
2023-02-10	Ms Teng filed two notices of arbitration with the SIAC
2023-02-28	Respondent filed its responses to the notices of arbitration
2023-03-31	SIAC Court of Arbitration consolidated both sets of proceedings
2023-06-19	Arbitrator for the consolidated arbitration proceedings was appointed
2023-06-28	Preliminary meeting held; Ms Teng’s solicitors applied for leave for the applicant to be joined as co-claimant in the arbitration
2023-07-06	Respondent objected to the application and requested a dismissal of the proceedings
2023-07-27	Arbitrator dismissed the joinder application
2023-08-04	Respondent filed an application for the early dismissal of the arbitration proceedings
2023-09-06	Applicant filed the present application to extend the time for her to commence arbitration against the respondent
2023-09-15	Arbitrator allowed application for early dismissal of arbitration proceedings
2023-11-01	Hearing date
2024-03-14	Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

Extension of Time for Commencing Arbitration
- Outcome: The court granted the application for an extension of time, finding that refusing the extension would cause undue hardship to the applicant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Undue hardship
  - Reasons for delay
  - Duration of delay
  - Value of dispute
  - Sustainability of claim
  - Prejudice to respondent
- Related Cases:
  - [1967] 2 QB 86
  - [2021] 1 SLR 342
  - [1991] 1 AC 148

8. Remedies Sought

Extension of time to commence arbitration
Accidental Death Benefits

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Insurance Contract

10. Practice Areas

Arbitration
Insurance Claims
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Liberian Shipping Corporation “Pegasus” v A King & Sons Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 86	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of “undue hardship” in the context of extending time for arbitration.
Recovery Vehicle 1 Pte Ltd v Industries Chimiques Du Senegal and another appeal and another matter	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 342	Singapore	Endorsed the definition of “undue hardship” from The Pegasus, albeit in a different context.
Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade S A	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 AC 148	N/A	Cited to support the principle that the term “undue hardship” should not be construed too narrowly.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Arbitration Act 2001	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Arbitration
Extension of time
Undue hardship
Accidental Death Benefits
Insurance policy
Time bar
Locus standi

15.2 Keywords

arbitration
extension of time
insurance
undue hardship

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Arbitration	95
Extension of Time	85
Insurance	75
Contract Law	60

16. Subjects

Arbitration
Insurance
Civil Procedure