Attorney-General v Tan Wee Beng: Automatic Discontinuance & Striking Out for Want of Prosecution
In Attorney-General, Singapore v Tan Wee Beng, the High Court of Singapore heard two related applications. The first concerned whether Order 21 Rule 2(6) applied to a case with interlocutory judgment but no action for a year. The second was whether the matter should be struck out for want of prosecution. The court dismissed both arguments, finding that the action was not automatically discontinued and should not be struck out. The plaintiff had obtained interlocutory judgment against the defendant on 29 August 2001, for damages to be assessed with interest payable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's arguments that the action was deemed discontinued, or that it was to be struck out for want of prosecution were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered whether an action was automatically discontinued under Order 21 Rule 2(6) and whether it should be struck out for want of prosecution. The court dismissed both arguments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General, Singapore | Plaintiff | Government Agency | Arguments against discontinuance and striking out were successful | Won | |
| Tan Wee Beng | Defendant | Individual | Applications dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kenneth Yap | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|
4. Facts
- The plaintiff obtained interlocutory judgment against the defendant on 29 August 2001 for damages to be assessed.
- On 29 August 2002, the plaintiff filed a summons for directions to set timelines for discovery and exchange of affidavits.
- The defendant argued that the action was automatically discontinued under Order 21 Rule 2(6) due to the plaintiff's inaction.
- The defendant also filed an application to strike out the plaintiff's action for want of prosecution.
- Negotiations on settlement occurred between the parties from November 2001 to May 2002.
- The defendant claimed prejudice due to the loss of indemnity against third parties and the potential unavailability of a witness.
5. Formal Citations
- Attorney-General, Singapore v Tan Wee Beng, Suit No 625 of 2001, [2002] SGHC 261
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff obtained interlocutory judgment against the defendant for damages to be assessed with interest payable. | |
| Plaintiff filed a summons for directions in SIC 3297 / 2002, to set the timelines for discovery, filing and exchange of affidavits for the purposes of a hearing to assess damages. | |
| Further hearing held; orders made regarding summons for directions and dismissal of striking out application. | |
| Plaintiffs and Defendant to serve List of Documents and Affidavit Verifying such List. | |
| Inspection of documents. | |
| List of witnesses to be determined before a Registrar. | |
| Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief to be filed and exchanged. | |
| Objections to be taken. | |
| Plaintiff given leave to file the Notice of Appointment of Assessment of Damages before the Registrar. | |
| Plaintiff to serve Notice of Appointment of Assessment of Damages on the Defendant. |
7. Legal Issues
- Automatic Discontinuance
- Outcome: The court held that the action was not automatically discontinued under Order 21 Rule 2(6).
- Category: Procedural
- Striking Out for Want of Prosecution
- Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the action for want of prosecution.
- Category: Procedural
- Computation of Time
- Outcome: The court found that the time period for taking a step or proceeding expired after 29 August 2002, excluding the date of the interlocutory judgment.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages to be assessed
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable principles for striking out for want of prosecution. |
| Ives and Barker v Williams | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1894] 2 Ch 478 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that mere correspondence does not constitute a step in the proceedings. |
| Mundy v The Butterley Co Ltd | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1932] 2 Ch 227 | England and Wales | Cited for the interpretation of the phrase 'any other proceeding' under Order 26 Rule 1 of the English Rules of Court. |
| Pugh v Duke of Leeds | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1777] 2 Cowp. 714 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the general rule of computation of time. |
| Radcliffe v Bartholomey | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1892] 1 Q.B. 161 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the application of the rule of computation of time. |
| Marren v Dawson, Bentley & Co Ltd | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1961] 2 QB 135 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the application of the rule of computation of time in limitation cases. |
| South Staffordshire Tramways Co. v Sickness and Accidents Assurance | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 402 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the application of the rule of computation of time in insurance cases. |
| Cartwright v MacCormack | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1963] 1 WLR 18 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the application of the rule of computation of time. |
| Cartwright v MacCormack | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1963] 1 All ER 11 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of the application of the rule of computation of time. |
| Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show prejudice when applying to strike out for want of prosecution. |
| Trill v Sacher | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 All ER 961 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the defendant to show prejudice when applying to strike out for want of prosecution. |
| Wee Siew Noi v Lee Mun Tuck | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited to establish that a defendant who was concerned about his right of indemnity against a third party ought to have taken active steps to protect his position by enjoining the third party in the action. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Amendment No. 2) Rules 1999, section 4 |
| Rules of Court (Amendment) Rules 2000, section 3 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 21 Rule 2(6) | Singapore |
| Order 21 Rule 2(8) | Singapore |
| Order 3 Rule 2(1) | Singapore |
| Order 3 Rule 2(2) | Singapore |
| Order 42 Rule 7 | Singapore |
| Order 42 Rule 8(3) | Singapore |
| Order 37 Rule 1(1) | Singapore |
| Order 37 Rule 1(3) | Singapore |
| Order 37 Rule 1(5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Automatic discontinuance
- Striking out for want of prosecution
- Interlocutory judgment
- Summons for directions
- Step or proceeding
- Inordinate and inexcusable delay
- Prejudice
- Computation of time
15.2 Keywords
- Automatic discontinuance
- Striking out
- Want of prosecution
- Interlocutory judgment
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation
- Legal Time Limits