[2005] SGCA 3

“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]”