Judgment Header
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others [2005] SGCA 3
Loading…
[2005] SGCA 3
Court of Appeal of Singapore17 Jan 2005CA 68/2004, NM 108/2004
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 7 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others [2005] SGCA 3, the Court of Appeal clarified (at [53]) that the relevant prejudice refers to that faced by the would-be respondent if an extension of time were granted and not the prejudice to the would-be appella”
“citors could submit the draft order to the Registrar on 19 June 2020 without sending it to the Wife (rule 676(6) of the FJR; see the decision of this court in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others [2005] SGCA 3 at [61], considering the equivalent rule under the then Rules of Court). The Husband’s solicitors also com”
“extension of time were granted, and not the prejudice to the would-be appellant if the extension were not granted (see the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and others [2005] SGCA 3 at [53]; Lee Hsien Loong at [24]). While the prejudice of the would-be appellant is not relevant, I note fo”
“if the applicant is permitted to pursue his appeal against her. That is prejudice inherent in the appellate process itself. As the Court of Appeal reasoned in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others [2005] SGCA 3 (“Anthony Wee”) at [54]–[55], with regard to this fourth factor:”
“iple of finality in dispute resolution. However, the doctrine, properly understood, only concerns the substantive determinations made by the court (Godfrey at [18]–[19]; Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2005] SGCA 3 at [69]; Ong Chai Hong v Chiang Shirley [2016] 3 SLR 1006 at [11]–[13]; Thu Aung Zaw v Ku Swee Boon [2018]”
“the applicants would be deprived of their right of appeal if an extension was not granted is not the kind of prejudice to be considered (Lee Hsien Loong at [24], citing Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2005] SGCA 3 at [53]–[54]). This is because an application for an extension of time arises from the default of an intend”
“re an applicant was out of time and required an extension, only the Court of Appeal could grant the said extension. This decision was subsequently affirmed in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and others [2005] SGCA 3 at [34] and Lioncity Construction Co Pte Ltd v JFC Builders Pte Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 141 at [32]) in the conte”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Others [2005] SGCA 3
Case Metadata
Case No: CA 68/2004, NM 108/2004
Case Metadata
Court: Court of Appeal of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2005-01-17
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.