Ho Soo Fong v Revitech Pte Ltd

[3] Before us, Mr Ho sought an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal against the Judge’s decision in OS 563. Having heard from the parties, we dismissed Mr Ho’s application on the basis that OS 563 was devoid of merit and had no prospect of success. OS 563 was simply an attempt to re-open matters that have long been concluded. We now set out the facts and the brief reasons for our decision.

[4] We provide here a summary of the salient events in this matter. A more detailed chronology appears in the annexure at the end of our grounds of decision.

[13] On 28 March 2018, about a month after his time to appeal against OS 563 had lapsed, Mr Ho filed his current application before us seeking an extension of time to file and serve his notice of appeal.

[14] A court faced with an application for extension of time should consider four factors: (a) the length of the delay; (b) the reasons for the delay; (c) the chances of the appeal succeeding if time for appealing were extended; and (d) the prejudice caused to the would-be respondent if an extension of time was in fact granted: see Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 (“Lee Hsien Loong”) at [28].